S
SoulSolace
Guest
Yep, that’s the one.
I would’ve looked for it myself, but kind of figured you’d know what I was talking about.
God bless.
- Status
I would’ve looked for it myself, but kind of figured you’d know what I was talking about.
God bless.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The entire issue is terminology. Love - Sex -Romance and how this interacts not just with Same Sex but with men and women.
Love and lust, emotions, originate in the same location in the brain and they are not as separate as some would imagine. There is no point where one starts and the other stops. They overlap and further lust can transition into love and vice versa. Also this indicates that either love or lust may indeed be at first sight. And when this indeed happens, the immediate response is to consummate. Further lust and a one night stand can result in love.
Lust causes the ventral striatum the part of the brain associated with emotion and motivation to show activity by transmission of information
Love activates the dorsal striatum, which impacts decision-making and is associated with addiction. Thus the earlier analogy so emotional and physiological components to both love and lust are slightly different but formed in the same part of the brain where it channels as indicated above. So romantic attraction and feelings of love for someone elevates our dopamine and serotonin levels, which causes feelings of elation. Lust is capable of interaction at this point and causes a spike in testosterone for men and women and this results in sexual arousal based on attraction and fantasy
Women tend to connect love and sex to a greater degree which is in fact what is witnessed on this thread and so too the confusion of lust and love.
Basic idea of thinking…
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Fblog%2Femotional-freedom%2F201108%2Flust-vs-love-do-you-know-the-difference&ei=xmK-U4bQIMfM8wG92oC4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHSDxVtZwP3mr-QSdqTcjqaNJE2HA
Physical attraction simply put means more opportunity which you all already know. More opportunity in the sequence equates to more mistakes, and I would propose adultery is increased in chance genetically as it perpetuates itself.
Oh one more idea, in the midst of this emotional roller coaster you might want to ask the advice of another not involved for honest perspective. Course if you are too full of yourself than I doubt you would believe they would have anything meaningful to say.
Love is an intense feeling of affection a deep profound and caring attraction that forms emotional attachment and does not act off the emotion of lust at this point. So this can culminate in wife, friends, children etc. Lust is a desire of sexual nature that is based on attraction. Thus the transition as lust triggers the sexual response.
The objects of love-lust are simply switched male-females on so forth.
Here the Church teaching is easier to see. CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
So in short sexual desire is disordered when engaged contrary to the unitive purpose of marriage, or when one acts to deliberately frustrate the intrinsic relationship of conjugal acts ordered to the procreation of human life.
Love and lust, emotions, originate in the same location in the brain and they are not as separate as some would imagine. There is no point where one starts and the other stops. They overlap and further lust can transition into love and vice versa. Also this indicates that either love or lust may indeed be at first sight. And when this indeed happens, the immediate response is to consummate. Further lust and a one night stand can result in love.
Lust causes the ventral striatum the part of the brain associated with emotion and motivation to show activity by transmission of information
Love activates the dorsal striatum, which impacts decision-making and is associated with addiction. Thus the earlier analogy so emotional and physiological components to both love and lust are slightly different but formed in the same part of the brain where it channels as indicated above. So romantic attraction and feelings of love for someone elevates our dopamine and serotonin levels, which causes feelings of elation. Lust is capable of interaction at this point and causes a spike in testosterone for men and women and this results in sexual arousal based on attraction and fantasy
Women tend to connect love and sex to a greater degree which is in fact what is witnessed on this thread and so too the confusion of lust and love.
Basic idea of thinking…
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychologytoday.com%2Fblog%2Femotional-freedom%2F201108%2Flust-vs-love-do-you-know-the-difference&ei=xmK-U4bQIMfM8wG92oC4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHSDxVtZwP3mr-QSdqTcjqaNJE2HA
Physical attraction simply put means more opportunity which you all already know. More opportunity in the sequence equates to more mistakes, and I would propose adultery is increased in chance genetically as it perpetuates itself.
Oh one more idea, in the midst of this emotional roller coaster you might want to ask the advice of another not involved for honest perspective. Course if you are too full of yourself than I doubt you would believe they would have anything meaningful to say.
Love is an intense feeling of affection a deep profound and caring attraction that forms emotional attachment and does not act off the emotion of lust at this point. So this can culminate in wife, friends, children etc. Lust is a desire of sexual nature that is based on attraction. Thus the transition as lust triggers the sexual response.
The objects of love-lust are simply switched male-females on so forth.
Here the Church teaching is easier to see. CCC 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
So in short sexual desire is disordered when engaged contrary to the unitive purpose of marriage, or when one acts to deliberately frustrate the intrinsic relationship of conjugal acts ordered to the procreation of human life.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3381524/
Sorry Joie…you are wrong.
One interesting fact about Dr von Krafft-Ebing, while he was reintroducing terms, he still considered homosexuality to be “…an illness that begged for treatment and a cure.”
Therefore if one accepts Krafft-Ebing’s definition of homosexuality as gospel, then one must accept his conclusion that it should be cured.
To help you grasp my point allow me to re-phrase my statement and eliminate the word “universally”.
Until 1986, homosexuality was understood by everyone in the world to mean same-gender sexual conduct.
Then the gay activists began their RE-definition…see my post above.
B
Ben_Carmine
Guest
So in other words, “everyone” misunderstood the word ‘sexuality’ until 1986?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Remember we are talking about HOMOsexuality.
B
Ben_Carmine
Guest
Yes, there’s a clue in the name, it starts with “sex” and ends in “-uality”.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
I was speaking about the introduction into English
non sequitur
Something can’t be understood by everyone in the world to mean something if the field that used it didn’t use it that way.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Actually, Ben, it is a noun not a name and it begins with “Homo”.
Homosexuality Legal Definition:
Sexual contact between two persons of the same sex.
duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/Homosexuality.aspx
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Nice try, Joie,
If you want to “grasp such plebeian things with ease.” I would suggest you be more detailed with your statements. Rather than:
“That is are first instance of those words therefore you are wrong.”
Try: That is/are the first instance of those words appearing in an English translation.
See, then I couldn’t say that you were wrong. But you said that I was wrong
It may be, but it is an interesting little tidbit. Don’t you agree?
What do you mean by “field”?
S
Setimet
Guest
Sorry to resurface with an off topic question, but starting a whole new thread to ask it didn’t feel right. I’m at a an impasse. Same situation as when I first posted a month ago.
Here’s the problem, if a sexual act between two people of the same sex is neither selfish nor lustful, but an intimate expression of love and trust–how is that wrong?
To put this in perspective, if monogamous same-sex relationships were accepted by the church we’d be discerning marriage. (We’ve talked about this.) So think of this as, you love your husband or wife, and you’ve been told that there is nothing wrong with the depth of that love, BUT if you have sex, that sex will be selfish, sinful, and could land you both in Hell. That’s what this situation is, in a nutshell.
Here’s the problem, if a sexual act between two people of the same sex is neither selfish nor lustful, but an intimate expression of love and trust–how is that wrong?
To put this in perspective, if monogamous same-sex relationships were accepted by the church we’d be discerning marriage. (We’ve talked about this.) So think of this as, you love your husband or wife, and you’ve been told that there is nothing wrong with the depth of that love, BUT if you have sex, that sex will be selfish, sinful, and could land you both in Hell. That’s what this situation is, in a nutshell.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The same presumptions could be made of pre-marital or adulterous sexual acts. To wit: ”if a sexual act between two unmarried individuals or individuals who are married to others, is neither selfish nor lustful, but an intimate expression of love and trust - how is that wrong?
The statement itself begs the question you are asking. By describing the sexual act in a way that depicts it as in no way being wrong you are asking how could it be wrong. The problem is you have defined the sexual act as “not wrong” before you asked the question about how it could possibly be wrong. It is a loaded question under the guise of being a reasonable one.
The real issue is whether pre-marital, adulterous or same sex sexual acts could ever be neither selfish nor lustful, but profound expressions of love and trust. And whether feelings of “love” and trust are sufficient to make acts morally licit.
It could legitimately be asked if “expressions” of love and trust are always morally licit. It is not clear to me that they are. It is not difficult to give examples of psychotic individuals who express “love” and trust in particularly unfortunate, regrettable and, even, pernicious ways.
It is not clear, either, whether a person’s intention is the sole factor that counts in terms of whether expressions of love are to be properly considered moral, licit or even authentic “love” by objective standards.
Suppose the way that both you and your partner “express” your “love” will, indeed, “land you both in Hell,” would that be sufficient to persuade you that the manner in which you express what you may wrongly believe to be “love” does not involve the genuine concern for the welfare of the other that you think it does and is precisely what does make the act “selfish?” After all, if the act is not conducive to your eternal welfare and you have good reason to think it might jeopardize it for both you and your partner, wouldn’t that be sufficient reason to not engage in such an act?
Think about it this way:
A teenage couple have profound “feelings” of love, intimacy and trust. Why should they refrain, at that moment from expressing that profound “love” in a sexual act? Perhaps because such an expression will not result in ends that promote each other’s future welfare? In fact, the foreseeable consequences for such an expression of their love are tenuous, at best, and have a good chance of harming both of them (and possible unintended offspring) in the long term.
Feelings of love and trust are insufficient for basing life-altering decisions on. Perhaps, that is an important lesson, yet unlearned by the adolescent level of “thinking” that our culture has bought into holus bolus. Purchase now (with our feelings and actions) with no thought of the payments required later. What is wrong with that? We can always declare bankruptcy (moral or otherwise) and be forgiven our debts if it turns out we are mistaken.
The question is whether such a view is, itself, a culpably immoral one.
J
JimG
Guest
“Contrary to today’s bio-belief, the heterosexual/homosexual binary is not in nature, but is socially constructed, therefore deconstructable.”
–Jonathan Ned Katz, quoted in a First Things article, “Against Heterosexuality.”
–Jonathan Ned Katz, quoted in a First Things article, “Against Heterosexuality.”
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
There are three logical answers here:
(1) The action is not wrong.
(2) Gay sex can never be an intimate expression of love and trust, though it might seem like one – this is Peter Plato’s answer above.
(3) Gay sex is a type of action that could be an expression of love and trust, but it is nevertheless harmful.
To give an example of another action in Category #3, consider the actions of two friends who spend lots of time drinking together in camaraderie. This could certainly be an expression of their love and trust, but it has the result of making them alcoholics – of making them, eventually, miserable.
I don’t know if gay relationships are strengthened or weakened by sex. I suspect the latter, but I don’t know. I can tell you this: if God genuinely forbids gay sex, there have to bad consequences to it. This doesn’t necessarily mean it is selfish or lustful, but it does mean that it either manifests some kind of vice or leads to bad consequences.
Well, I don’t need it put in perspective, because I’m attracted to other men. I will say that, from my limited experience of the sort of acts involved in gay sexual relationships, these acts aren’t the type of thing that lend themselves to total self-giving. They are … lopsided. If I were exclusively gay, I would find it frustrating that (to put it as delicately as possible) none of the acts involved naturally involve both partners’ erogenous zones at the same time.
Then again, it also probably makes chastity easier.
S
Setimet
Guest
PETER PLATO —>
Thank you for pointing out how poorly I worded the question. Before I continue with a reply I would just like to point out that I am NOT in a sexually active relationship. The situation is the same as it was in my first post when I started this thread!..except we’ve done a lot more research since then thanks to the many other posts.
To compare same-sex attraction to pre-marital or adulterous sexual acts is not an equal comparison. To answer the question you posed “If a sexual act between two unmarried individuals or individuals who are married to others, is neither selfish nor lustful, but an intimate expression of love and trust—how is that wrong?”
It’s wrong because either there is no commitment, or you’ve already committed yourself to someone else.
Therefore, if having under no duress you made a vow to someone else and knowingly commit an act that would hurt them, you are in fact being selfish.
Likewise, if you “out of love” for someone are putting them at risk for pregnancy (among other things), without committing to responsibly caring for a child or the result of your actions or the other person, that is once again being selfish.
Same-sex relations cannot be reasonable compared to premarital and adulterous sex. The sin with the later is commitment; the “sin” with the former is same gender.
In regards to what is morally licit—real love is always morally licit as it is the foundation of Christianity as it was the motives for Christ’s actions. Is it not?
Matthew 22:36-40 (NRSVCE)
36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
In regards to your example, a mentally ill, psychotic individual has obviously skewed the meaning of “love”.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NRSVCE)
4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Song of Solomon 8:6
"Put me like a seal over your heart, Like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, Jealousy is as severe as Sheol; Its flashes are flashes of fire, The very flame of the LORD.
Also, and I think very importantly, she is not my “partner”. For the very reason you mentioned, fear of God and Hell, we have remained celibate (with a lot of prayer and avoidance in some cases) since this issue arose as I mentioned in my first post.
I agree with you completely, “Feelings” are not enough to morally justify something.
They say you know a tree by its fruit. We’ve seen nothing but good fruit thus far.
So maybe it’s better to approach the question from the “opposite direction”.
The question should be “how is a sexual act between a committed, monogamous, loving couple of the same gender a sin?”I know procreation is one commonly given answer, but sterile people suffer the same, and some are born with it.
Moreover, to say that a same-sex act cannot be unitive is totally false, as the biological activity of neurotransmitters and hormones such as oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, corticosterone, etc, can similarly form a pair bond.
I should perhaps also point out that the church teaching on homosexuality is neither dogmatic nor infallibly defined.
Thank you for pointing out how poorly I worded the question. Before I continue with a reply I would just like to point out that I am NOT in a sexually active relationship. The situation is the same as it was in my first post when I started this thread!..except we’ve done a lot more research since then thanks to the many other posts.
To compare same-sex attraction to pre-marital or adulterous sexual acts is not an equal comparison. To answer the question you posed “If a sexual act between two unmarried individuals or individuals who are married to others, is neither selfish nor lustful, but an intimate expression of love and trust—how is that wrong?”
It’s wrong because either there is no commitment, or you’ve already committed yourself to someone else.
Therefore, if having under no duress you made a vow to someone else and knowingly commit an act that would hurt them, you are in fact being selfish.
Likewise, if you “out of love” for someone are putting them at risk for pregnancy (among other things), without committing to responsibly caring for a child or the result of your actions or the other person, that is once again being selfish.
Same-sex relations cannot be reasonable compared to premarital and adulterous sex. The sin with the later is commitment; the “sin” with the former is same gender.
In regards to what is morally licit—real love is always morally licit as it is the foundation of Christianity as it was the motives for Christ’s actions. Is it not?
Matthew 22:36-40 (NRSVCE)
36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
In regards to your example, a mentally ill, psychotic individual has obviously skewed the meaning of “love”.
1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NRSVCE)
4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Song of Solomon 8:6
"Put me like a seal over your heart, Like a seal on your arm. For love is as strong as death, Jealousy is as severe as Sheol; Its flashes are flashes of fire, The very flame of the LORD.
Also, and I think very importantly, she is not my “partner”. For the very reason you mentioned, fear of God and Hell, we have remained celibate (with a lot of prayer and avoidance in some cases) since this issue arose as I mentioned in my first post.
I agree with you completely, “Feelings” are not enough to morally justify something.
They say you know a tree by its fruit. We’ve seen nothing but good fruit thus far.
So maybe it’s better to approach the question from the “opposite direction”.
The question should be “how is a sexual act between a committed, monogamous, loving couple of the same gender a sin?”I know procreation is one commonly given answer, but sterile people suffer the same, and some are born with it.
Moreover, to say that a same-sex act cannot be unitive is totally false, as the biological activity of neurotransmitters and hormones such as oxytocin, vasopressin, dopamine, corticosterone, etc, can similarly form a pair bond.
I should perhaps also point out that the church teaching on homosexuality is neither dogmatic nor infallibly defined.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Yes, but the attraction to people of the same sex isn’t deconstructable!
J
JimG
Guest
One might say the same about any of our attractions or affections. I think that one of the points of the article was that until rather recently, homosexuality simply referred to sexual acts between persons of the same gender, and not to a perceived permanent affective condition. The condition of “heterosexuality” as an affective condition was similarly unknown. There are men; there are women. They may engage in a variety of sexual acts, many of which might be deemed disordered, no matter one’s affective orientation.
S
Setimet
Guest
So funny story, I actually used to totally agree with Peter Plato’s #2 answer. THANK YOU for spelling those answers out for me!There are three logical answers here:
(1) The action is not wrong.
(2) Gay sex can never be an intimate expression of love and trust, though it might seem like one – this is Peter Plato’s answer above.
(3) Gay sex is a type of action that could be an expression of love and trust, but it is nevertheless harmful.
To give an example of another action in Category #3, consider the actions of two friends who spend lots of time drinking together in camaraderie. This could certainly be an expression of their love and trust, but it has the result of making them alcoholics – of making them, eventually, miserable.
I don’t know if gay relationships are strengthened or weakened by sex. I suspect the latter, but I don’t know. I can tell you this: if God genuinely forbids gay sex, there have to bad consequences to it. This doesn’t necessarily mean it is selfish or lustful, but it does mean that it either manifests some kind of vice or leads to bad consequences.
Well, I don’t need it put in perspective, because I’m attracted to other men. I will say that, from my limited experience of the sort of acts involved in gay sexual relationships, these acts aren’t the type of thing that lend themselves to total self-giving. They are … lopsided. If I were exclusively gay, I would find it frustrating that (to put it as delicately as possible) none of the acts involved naturally involve both partners’ erogenous zones at the same time.
Then again, it also probably makes chastity easier.
Lucky #3 is a big part of what has me stumped. Pre-marital sex=accidental pregnancy. Got it. Even the Leviticus holiness code “don’t eat shell fish” would’ve been beneficial back in those days.
The commandants are put in place for our own well-being, not because God feels like it. I understand this. What I’m having trouble with is how someone can receive the grace to love someone very deeply, but be told it has specific boundaries. Boundaries make sense if it’s hurting someone.
Who is it hurting then? And how?
Thanks!
P.S. If anyone was going to say that HIV is punishment for gays, I just wanted to point out that aside from being insensitive, as of 2009 the CDC has 0 cases of HIV from sexual contact between two women. Doesn’t mean lesbians can’t get HIV, they can, but it has yet to be transmitted via lesbian sexual contact.
J
JimG
Guest
The term ‘unitive’ at least as presented in Catholic moral philosophy in conjunction with the term ‘procreative,’ has an intrinsic link with the conjugal act in which the male and female bodies are united in the only act that can be called conjugal or marital. It is the conjugal act itself which is both unitive and procreative by nature.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
- That’s somewhat inaccurate. The article said the word “homosexuality” is a recent invention pertaining to the description of attractions to the same sex. It didn’t talk about defining by actions at all, so far as I recall.
- It said orientation was a social construction. Only social constructions can be deconstructed.
- My attraction to other men is not an orientation. It is a phenomenon. It cannot be deconstucted, no more than my appetite for bacon can be deconstructed.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes, I can agree with that, although I’m not quite clear on what deconstructing an attraction might mean. I suppose some attractions are less deconstructible than others but I haven’t given it that much thought.
- Status