Is it objectively meaningful and functionally correct to class Same Sex Attraction as a genuine form of human Sexuality?

[Benadam]

I also agree that a heterosexual marriage has the potential purpose of procreation, which is unique to a heterosexual marriage.

 

[Mudgely]

This thread has gone off topic, as the OP was asking whether homosexuality is a “genuine” form of human sexuality. Of course is it genuine. Unless I am missing some great intellectual subtlety, that question nearly answers itself. The issue for Catholics is that the behavior is immoral, that the sexual orientation is “disordered”, whatever that means. I am guessing it is code for the Catholic view of “natural law”, which is a whole new topic to unravel.

I posted this link on another similar thread. It is Professor Sandel, one of my favorites, in his social justice class at Harvard University. He is a master at teaching with the Socratic method. This lecture starts with the conclusion of his consideration of “communitarian” standards of morality, which he dismisses as a form of moral relativism which fails to rise to the standard necessary to decide teleological questions. He then moves on to consider the question of gay marriage. The first student to respond is Catholic, and then others join the conversation with Sandel moderating. His premise is that the moral good, and some absolute standard is required to decide such questions, but in the end he concludes that while it is necessary, that the Telios, in the Aristotelian sense is illusive in a diverse culture. He illustrates his thesis by comparing the views presented to the Massachusetts decision. The course is on the social and governance aspects of morality.

If you enjoy considering these questions, then you might enjoy the entire series.

justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-12/#watch

 

[Elizabeth502]

Of course is it genuine.

Not “genuine” in the way that you continually try to convert Catholics on this discussion forum to believe it is “genuine.” Not genuine in the sense of philosophically and morally equivalent to heteresexuality. It can never be in the Catholic viewpoint, because genuine sexuality is ordered to Life and to the Good of God’s creation. (Nice try, though.)

If you enjoy considering these questions, then you might enjoy the entire series.

I wonder if you have any concept that this is a Catholic discussion forum. Other than an intellectual exercise, why would you think that Catholics who do understand their faith would “enjoy” taking seriously a professor who dismisses absolute standards as being “illusive” in a diverse culture. Catholics are used to dealing with the "illusive,’ the illusory, and the elusive, in both homogeneous and diverse cultures, because we understand that the secular world has always resisted moral absolutes which make immorality inconvenient and annoying. The “Massachusetts decision,” which you keep peddling in a rather transparent attempt to sway your audience, has nothing to do with Catholic Apologetics, which are not subject to modification by Harvard professors.

 

[RobbyS]

This was an inevitable symptom of the split between Church and state. Not only was it a split between a religious institution and the circular authorities, but it was a split between the idea of Divine Law and circular ethics. It has taken a long time for people to realize that fact, but the fruits of such a truth is now coming to bear. We live in a fundamentally non-Christian society, and people are deluded if they ever thought otherwise. The legalism of todays world is inherently pragmatic and methodologically naturalistic which leads necessarily to pluralistic values. Law is culturally pluralistic because of its pragmatic foundation, and as such it cannot favor moral truths that require religious assumptions - which are exclusive to Christianity - in-order to be true. The system only supports a religious view if it provides a pluralistic and pragmatic benefit to the system. For example, views such as “thou shall not kill” is acceptable, but not because it is a divine truth, but rather it is because we all want to be protected regardless of our different beliefs or religious convictions; therefore such a rule has pragmatic and pluralistic value. As Catholics it is impossible for us to argue on a purely pragmatic basis that homosexuality is wrong and that positive views on gay relationships should be kept out of schools. Given such a system it therefore follows that non-Christian ideals can gain political favor on a pragmatic basis. That gay rights, such as adoption, has come this far, is largely consistent with the nature of circular law.

It is not a surprise to me. I think it is largely foolishness and a lack of wisdom that drives Catholics in to thinking that they can change the law to favor Catholic morality through politics. That is what surprises me. I have never understood why people attack gay marriage through a system that provides the methodological basis for its existence.

All that we can do is try to teach our children the truth and continue to express our faith. Change will only come through conversion; and even then, so long as a split between church and state exists, the legalization of immoral acts will persist.

Anything less than a revolution in the human soul, will fall on the deaf ears of legality.

Pragmatic, of course, does not mean that it is grounded in fact or reason but in the notion that all morality is conventional and that law ought to be changed constantly to reflect changes in convention. But if one is in a crowd, one is carried along with the crowd,even if it goes over a cliff. What good is the rule of law if the law changes with the winds? Gay rights is a kind of contradiction in terms. “Gay” in the 18th century meant libertine, free from all restraint. But “rights” implies the protection of the state. Gays are in fact demanding that the state restrain all other so that they can be perfectly free.

 

[RobbyS]

This thread has gone off topic, as the OP was asking whether homosexuality is a “genuine” form of human sexuality. Of course is it genuine. Unless I am missing some great intellectual subtlety, that question nearly answers itself. The issue for Catholics is that the behavior is immoral, that the sexual orientation is “disordered”, whatever that means. I am guessing it is code for the Catholic view of “natural law”, which is a whole new topic to unravel.

I posted this link on another similar thread. It is Professor Sandel, one of my favorites, in his social justice class at Harvard University. He is a master at teaching with the Socratic method. This lecture starts with the conclusion of his consideration of “communitarian” standards of morality, which he dismisses as a form of moral relativism which fails to rise to the standard necessary to decide teleological questions. He then moves on to consider the question of gay marriage. The first student to respond is Catholic, and then others join the conversation with Sandel moderating. His premise is that the moral good, and some absolute standard is required to decide such questions, but in the end he concludes that while it is necessary, that the Telios, in the Aristotelian sense is illusive in a diverse culture. He illustrates his thesis by comparing the views presented to the Massachusetts decision. The course is on the social and governance aspects of morality.

If you enjoy considering these questions, then you might enjoy the entire series.

justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-12/#watch

Ironic that you should talk about the Socratic method, because your professor is actually a sophist , more like Isocrates than Plato.

 

[Mudgely]

Not “genuine” in the way that you continually try to convert Catholics on this discussion forum to believe it is “genuine.” Not genuine in the sense of philosophically and morally equivalent to heteresexuality. It can never be in the Catholic viewpoint, because genuine sexuality is ordered to Life and to the Good of God’s creation. (Nice try, though.)

I wonder if you have any concept that this is a Catholic discussion forum. Other than an intellectual exercise, why would you think that Catholics who do understand their faith would “enjoy” taking seriously a professor who dismisses absolute standards as being “illusive” in a diverse culture. Catholics are used to dealing with the "illusive,’ the illusory, and the elusive, in both homogeneous and diverse cultures, because we understand that the secular world has always resisted moral absolutes which make immorality inconvenient and annoying. The “Massachusetts decision,” which you keep peddling in a rather transparent attempt to sway your audience, has nothing to do with Catholic Apologetics, which are not subject to modification by Harvard professors.

Elizabeth, why are you so hostile to those who post their opinions here? Catholicism is one of many religions in the world. Do you think that constant personal attacks against those who have any opinion other than yours is appropriate in a discussion forum? Some of us are trying to weigh the validity of the Catholic point of view in a critical manner. and to understand it better. Professor Sandel does that in fact, and points out that he supports the idea of moral absolutes for approaching such issues. If anything, he supports the Catholic position on gay marriage, while looking at the Massachusetts decision and while considering the various points of views of his students. Unlike you, he is disrespectful to nobody.

If you don’t want to listen to him, then don’t click on the link. Simple.

 

[Mudgely]

First, let me apologize for lowering myself to the level of a personal response in my last post. In the future, I will ignore personal attacks by others. nothing is gained here by flame wars.

I express my point of view. I don’t apologize for that. Sandel states the problem eloquently that finding moral absolutes is challenging in a diverse culture. He starts by asking if moral relativism can solve the problem, and concludes that it doesn’t. That is an issue that keeps coming up in these threads.

There are two distinct perspectives on morality which recur in these threads: (1) Morality is communitarian, and changes according to time, changing knowledge and social trends. This view is rejected by Catholicism as licentious, in this case, and as a violation of infallible teaching. (2) Morality is absolute and static. It’s only source is the Church.

There are three distinct perspectives on gay sex which recur: (1) There is a relative standard, which is relative to time, culture and changing social mores. This view is in direct contradiction to Catholicism. (2) There is an absolute standard which rejects homosexual acts as being non-procreative, and therefore rejects gay sexual relationships as sinful. (3) There is an absolute moral standard which says something other than the Catholic position. This is not the view of the Church, but may be the view of the majority of Catholics.

Sandel engages his students in talking about this, and the only opinion which he expresses personally is that an absolute moral standard is required in order to answer certain moral questions. He proposes that there is a requirement to determine what “the good” is.

It should not need to be said, but if you are not interested in such a discussion, then don’t click on the link. I have tried to represent it fairly, so that people won’t waste their time on something which they are not interested in.

I may be prejudiced, but I think that Harvard is a good school, and that Professor Sandel is one of its better instructors.

 

[inocente]

Pragmatic, of course, does not mean that it is grounded in fact or reason but in the notion that all morality is conventional and that law ought to be changed constantly to reflect changes in convention. But if one is in a crowd, one is carried along with the crowd,even if it goes over a cliff. What good is the rule of law if the law changes with the winds? Gay rights is a kind of contradiction in terms. “Gay” in the 18th century meant libertine, free from all restraint. But “rights” implies the protection of the state. Gays are in fact demanding that the state restrain all other so that they can be perfectly free.

But arguments for the status quo may equally have been made against freeing the slaves, civil rights and women getting the vote, while we, the generations that came after, see them as absolutely necessary advances in the rule of law. It seems just a bit optimistic to think we alone live in an age where the law has finally achieved such perfection that it can’t possibly be improved upon ever again.

 

[inocente]

I may be prejudiced, but I think that Harvard is a good school, and that Professor Sandel is one of its better instructors.

I listened to the entire course a while back, and thought it would be nice if we could aim to achieve the same levels of respect, insight and wit in our debates, as I for one often fail.

 

[Mudgely]

Ironic that you should talk about the Socratic method, because your professor is actually a sophist , more like Isocrates than Plato.

Thanks for pointing that out. I hope you enjoyed his discussion.

 

[Lui]

First, let me apologize for lowering myself to the level of a personal response in my last post. In the future, I will ignore personal attacks by others. nothing is gained here by flame wars.
.

Personal attacks, the mocking and the twisting of words or taking quotes out of context to make one look ridiculous is an unfortunate practice done my many here who don’t agree with your opinion.
It made me get heated and respond in a way that I often regretted too. I guess ignoring them is really the best thing to do.

 

[Mudgely]

Personal attacks, the mocking and the twisting of words or taking quotes out of context to make one look ridiculous is an unfortunate practice done my many here who don’t agree with your opinion.
It made me get heated and respond in a way that I often regretted too. I guess ignoring them is really the best thing to do.

Sometimes, I don’t live up to the standards which I admire and aspire to. I think in a discussion forum there is no place for derogatory or insulting language. Once again, I apologize if I came across in that way, and I reaffirm my commitment anyone who addresses me in that way not to respond in kind.

 

[Mudgely]

I think our differences stem from a different view on the meaning of the human pairbond. Reproduction doesn’t follow the pairbond, The only reason the pairbond exists is to create a safe environment. There is no other kind of pairbond. Any two people can assume relations typical of the human pairbond and experience a quasi-pairbond.
Well, the human soul is created directly from God and the souls of other animals are made by earthly proceses. But it is a thing of wonder.
‘In love’ Love is supposed to cement all relationships and it is not something that defines human relationships. Including the sexual energies as part of the relationship and the sex act as a defining factor of the relationship causes the unitive function
There would be no discussion on this issue had not the matrimonial bond already been weakened and the meaning of the traditional human family a vague notion.
No, it’s been around a long time, what’s different now is the technology exists to redefine what it means to the people of this culture. What’s sad is that the matrimonial bond is treated as if it isn’t something real.
Love is supposed to cement all human relationships. Sex in a relationship triggers the unitive function. The defining characteristic of the human pairbond is oneness not love.

 

[Benadam]

I assume that what you mean by a "quasi-pairbond’ is a pair bond between two of a monogamous species of same sex. Right?

 

[Sair]

That a practice is commonplace doesn’t mean that it’s natural.

Yet heterosexuality is far more commonplace than homosexuality…does this correlate to this being the natural condition of humans?

The very fact that homosexuality has persisted despite widespread persecution, despite the fact that a simplistic understanding of evolutionary biology would suggest it ought never to have got off the ground, would actually appear to suggest that it is, in all ways that matter, a ‘genuine’ form of human sexuality.

There is no consequence of celibacy that condemns it as a choice, especially in light of the fact that spiritual fatherhood is a reasonable alternative to familial fatherhood. The consequences of sodomy may be many, including an early death … which alone is a reason to condemn the practice.

A couple of things here - there are a great many things in our society whose consequences, by your lights, would be a reason to condemn them as practices…such as eating fast food, for example, or driving cars. Both have well-documented harmful effects, yet are celebrated as capitalist participation and free action. I don’t think the harmful effects of careless sex, whether hetero or homo, are reason enough to categorically condemn either.

Secondly, it’s not well established whether enforced celibacy has or has not detrimental effects upon those who practice it. On the other hand, it’s quite true that some people are naturally asexual - they feel negligible sexual desire for anyone, either their own or the other sex. But this is not a ‘choice’, in the sense of being a deliberate suppression of an existing desire - it’s just the way some people are constituted. It’s as valid a form of sexuality as hetero- or homosexuality. What I wonder is why people can’t just accept that people come complete with a wide variety of preferences, instead preferring to arrogantly suppose that their way is the only right way.

 

[Benadam]

• it’s quite true that some people are naturally asexual* - they feel negligible sexual desire for anyone, either their own or the other sex. But this is not a ‘choice’, in the sense of being a deliberate suppression of an existing desire - it’s just the way some people are constituted. It’s as valid a form of sexuality as hetero- or homosexuality. What I wonder is why people can’t just accept that people come complete with a wide variety of preferences, instead preferring to arrogantly suppose that their way is the only right way.

It’s true that human life never reproduced asexually. Humans have at their disposal just one way of naturally reproducing. We may be able to argue that the Incarnation was human asexual reproduction but not sexual behaviour that isn’t reproductive.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

sair
**
The very fact that homosexuality has persisted despite widespread persecution, despite the fact that a simplistic understanding of evolutionary biology would suggest it ought never to have got off the ground, would actually appear to suggest that it is, in all ways that matter, a ‘genuine’ form of human sexuality.**

Incest has also persisted despite widespread condemnation. By your logic it too must be a “genuine” form of human sexuality?

**I don’t think the harmful effects of careless sex, whether hetero or homo, are reason enough to categorically condemn either. **

So if your daughter caught a serious venereal disease from casual sex, that’s O.K. with you?

On the other hand, it’s quite true that some people are naturally asexual - they feel negligible sexual desire for anyone, either their own or the other sex.

Again, there can be no harmful effects (diseases) of being celibate, whereas promiscuity and sodomy are replete with such effects.

 

[Lui]

Incest has also persisted despite widespread condemnation. By your logic it too must be a “genuine” form of human sexuality?

Don’t Catholics actually believe that we all come from the incest of Adam ad Eve’s children?

So if your daughter caught a serious venereal disease from casual sex, that’s O.K. with you?

Ever heard of condoms?

Again, there can be no harmful effects (diseases) of being celibate, whereas promiscuity and sodomy are replete with such effects.

Sexual diseases can be transmitted by any form of sex and again you can also protect yourself by using condoms.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lui

Ever heard of condoms?

Are condoms used with oral sex?

Condoms often are not used with careless or casual sex.

**Sexual diseases can be transmitted by any form of sex and again you can also protect yourself by using condoms. **

Sexual diseases will not be transmitted if you are celibate, or if you are faithful have sex with only one faithful partner throughout your life.

If you are not faithful, or your partner is not faithful … more reason for condemnation … and all the more reason for condemnation if you or your partner are promiscuous.

 

[Benadam]

Don’t Catholics actually believe that we all come from the incest of Adam ad Eve’s children?

Hi . Incest is a genuine form of human sexuality. Imagine if the human race had been whittled down to 5 to 10 people. Parents and siblings. Would the meaning of your opposite gender sibling change?