Is romantic attraction and expression sexual in nature?

[Bookcat]

I’m sorry, but this just further demonstrates why CAF stands for “Conservative American Forum.”

Oh an by the way my wife is from** Europe** and was educated there and lived most her life there and is in agreement with me on these SSA matters and other matters - and discusses them with me contributing her thought …(though she disagrees with me on other subjects i.e. .the need to always pick up ones socks or the need to put ones shoes where they belong…)

 

[GaryTaylor]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. I was speaking specifically of this statement:

I’m not sure that “I never get it for members of my sex” is sufficient evidence that a desire or feeling is always sexual.

Yes, but just because something is the experience of the majority of persons doesn’t mean that any other experience is disordered. I don’t think majorities are particularly good evidence in this case.

In that case, we should not have to rely on majorities. We should be able to demonstrate, without relying on individual experiences, that “romantic” actions require the complementary natures of men and women. I don’t know how one would go about arguing that.

Then the answer must be “it depends”, right? It would depend entirely on our intention, not the acts themselves. So if SMGS’s intention in making out with someone was to communicate or facilitate agape love, how could it be sexual?

I think we must acknowledge that the specific actions do matter, if anyone here is going to argue that making out between persons of the same sex is not permissible, regardless of intention.

I think so also as the intention becomes known through the action, if its not verbalized by thought-word.

 

[Bookcat]

It would depend entirely on our intention, not the acts themselves. So if SMGS’s intention in making out with someone was to communicate or facilitate agape love, how could it be sexual?

But even if such was not intended as erotic - or for some unusual reason it be not so – such is still not something for two persons of the same sex ever to engage in. One will not find any solid theological defense of such proposal. Such is not the way for “friends” to bond. They bond by doing things together - with common interests, sharing of struggles and joys etc. Not by “making out”.

Agape is not communicated between too persons of the same sex by making out.

 

[Kamaduck]

Your missing posts:

I see that you think cuddling is OK between family members, and that whether it is OK in a given relationship depends on how we define “cuddling”. And I suppose it does, but I can’t imagine any sort of “cuddling” that wouldn’t be OK between two women. If it went beyond that, it wouldn’t be cuddling anymore.

 

[Bookcat]

I see that you think cuddling is OK between family members, and that whether it is OK in a given relationship depends on how we define “cuddling”. And I suppose it does, but I can’t imagine any sort of “cuddling” that wouldn’t be OK between two women. If it went beyond that, it wouldn’t be cuddling anymore.

Still missing posts

(but I suppose girls have some different approaches than guys perhaps at times–again depends on what is meant and the context of the act)

As to cuddling that would not be ok between two women- an example would be to so such as a way of acting in accordance withe “disordered inclination”. To cuddle in some romantic way - as if they were “boy friend and girlfriend”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But even if such was not intended as erotic - or for some unusual reason it be not so – such is still not something for two persons of the same sex ever to engage in. One will not find any solid theological defense of such proposal. Such is not the way for “friends” to bond. They bond by doing things together - with common interests, sharing of struggles and joys etc. Not by “making out”.

Agape is not communicated between too persons of the same sex by making out.

I agree here also.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t see where it matters, intent is the thought by thought process which results in a goal or plan.

Anyone may claim their intentions are pure. But its unlikely an alcoholic who offers another alcoholic a drink has pure intentions. Which is to say someone who is already in this realm rationalizes the triggers, and not only is this problematic for them, but incredibly naive of others with like issues.

I cannot imagine how people of the same-sex making out is not a sin against chastity. It is homosexual behavior without a doubt.

It is exactly like the alcoholic trying to sober up but looking for loopholes. Desperately looking for way that he can continue his behavior without the problems. I mentioned this in another thread but in AA we call this bargaining with yourself. It goes like this if the this:

"I know I have a drinking problem so I will only allow myself two beers a day OR Ill just drink on social occasions or Ill just drink on weekends. Of course it never works

We see the same thing with those struggling with same-sex attraction. " I know homosexual behavior is wrong so all make sure we only old hands OR we will only cuddle or we will only make out. "

When you put destructive behaviors behind you have to totally turn your back on the lifestyle. I can’t hang out in bars anymore. Most of my friends who were my drinking buddies are no longer my friends. Recognizing this fact is one of the crucial components of recovery.

 

[SMGS127]

I cannot imagine how people of the same-sex making out is not a sin against chastity. It is homosexual behavior without a doubt.

It is exactly like the alcoholic trying to sober up but looking for loopholes. Desperately looking for way that he can continue his behavior without the problems. I mentioned this in another thread but in AA we call this bargaining with yourself. It goes like this if the this:

"I know I have a drinking problem so I will only allow myself two beers a day OR Ill just drink on social occasions or Ill just drink on weekends. Of course it never works

We see the same thing with those struggling with same-sex attraction. " I know homosexual behavior is wrong so all make sure we only old hands OR we will only cuddle or we will only make out. "

When you put destructive behaviors behind you have to totally turn your back on the lifestyle. I can’t hang out in bars anymore. Most of my friends who were my drinking buddies are no longer my friends. Recognizing this fact is one of the crucial components of recovery.

It’s not bargaining. I just realized that the Church doesn’t actually bar same-sex behavior. She only bars same-sex sexual activity. And I’m not willing to hold myself to unnecessary rules others who aren’t the Church come up with to keep me super-special-awesome chaste when I would be chaste anyway. I find it telling that no one actually has Magisterial evidence to support their claims.

 

[Bookcat]

Ought persons with SSA act upon the disordered inclination that is within them (whatever reason)?

Should they date?

Should they kiss?

Should the be involved in “same-sex relationships”? (again I do not mean friendships)

Such is not an option - for such would be to conform themselves to the disordered inclination in question. Such would be to “act in a homosexual way”. Just as a hetrosexual who engages in those activities - can be said to “act in a hetrosexual way”.

It is important to note too that what is being missed is that yes in the area of relationships between two persons – man and woman- who are free to marry – yes there is a good amount of detail (such as in the works on the subject) as to chaste dating or courting or relationships and in Marriage given by say Moral Theologians. But in terms of two persons of the same- sex who seek to enter or carry out a “same-sex relationship” one does not find such –for such would be entering into an area that is not to be entered. One does not find orthodox sources that state it is ok for those with SSA to “date” etc.

Dating or a “same –sex relationship” is not a possibility for such would be acting according to the “objectively disordered inclination” instead of acting in a chaste manner in a disinterested friendship. One cannot say “same –sex relationships” can happen –similar to “man-woman relationships” and would follow the same morality. The Church teaches that the “inclination" is disordered “itself”. Thus ought not to be willingly engaged – be it in sexual acts or other homosexual acts such as kissing a person of the same gender – even lightly - or engaging in a same-sex relationship.

Catholic Answers Staff: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12153558&postcount=104

By same –sex relationship –what is meant is not that of “friendship”.

What one does find a good deal of-- is writings on “friendship”. And that is important. Disinterested friendship.

As to “making out” for an increase in an emotional bond (without erotic aspect which is rather likely to occur really) – such is not something that would an option to be chosen – for such is not something one does with a “friend” (though one’s spouse can be ones friend of course). And I mean here an ordered Christian friendship.

 

[Kamaduck]

"Bookcat:

But even if such was not intended as erotic - or for some unusual reason it be not so – such is still not something for two persons of the same sex ever to engage in. One will not find any solid theological defense of such proposal. Such is not the way for “friends” to bond. They bond by doing things together - with common interests, sharing of struggles and joys etc. Not by “making out”.

Agape is not communicated between too persons of the same sex by making out.

You may be right. If you are, then we have to accept that some actions are inherently sexual while others are not (whether they are never sexual, or can be sexual depending on the way someone does them). That’s all I was saying in that post- I think both actions and attractions matter. I don’t think we can just discuss one or the other, since they’re connected.

Still missing posts

Sorry. Yes, I think our culture treats touch between men and touch between women differently. If men touch each other in a nonsexual, nonromantic way, there is still a stigma attached. I would argue that this is a bad thing.

And of course, part of it might just be that women tend to be more touchy-feely then men. I don’t know.

As to cuddling that would not be ok between two women- an example would be to so such as a way of acting in accordance withe “disordered inclination”. To cuddle in some romantic way - as if they were “boy friend and girlfriend”.

As far as I know there isn’t much difference between romantic and nonromantic cuddling. They look the same.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I cannot imagine how people of the same-sex making out is not a sin against chastity. It is homosexual behavior without a doubt.

It is exactly like the alcoholic trying to sober up but looking for loopholes. Desperately looking for way that he can continue his behavior without the problems. I mentioned this in another thread but in AA we call this bargaining with yourself. It goes like this if the this:

"I know I have a drinking problem so I will only allow myself two beers a day OR Ill just drink on social occasions or Ill just drink on weekends. Of course it never works

We see the same thing with those struggling with same-sex attraction. " I know homosexual behavior is wrong so all make sure we only old hands OR we will only cuddle or we will only make out. "

When you put destructive behaviors behind you have to totally turn your back on the lifestyle. I can’t hang out in bars anymore. Most of my friends who were my drinking buddies are no longer my friends. Recognizing this fact is one of the crucial components of recovery.

Yep, thats how I see it. Otherwise your entertaining destructive thinking already acknowledged as a problem. It can’t be anything but counter productive, Then to drag another into this is suspect to say the least.

 

[Bookcat]

As far as I know there isn’t much difference between romantic and nonromantic cuddling. They look the same.

Perhaps - I do not know - I am not a woman. (And my European wife noted that such would be seen more rather in young girls…but that need not matter too much here.)

However even if:

So can a man holding the hand of his wife walking down the street

and

A man holding the hand of* the woman he is committing adultery with* -walking down the street.

They can look the same too.

 

[One_point]

I am sorry if I misunderstood. I was speaking specifically of this statement:

I’m not sure that “I never get it for members of my sex” is sufficient evidence that a desire or feeling is always sexual.

That was a wrong choice of words on my part: the attraction that arises in puberty for the opposite sex and which we experience in what we popularly call crushes is a romantic interest. It draws us to the other as both different and desirable and before this aspect enters our consciousness, we do not experience these “crushes”. If you are saying this is not true, I really would be interested apart from gay people, how else crushes are experienced except as attractions between sexually compatibles individuals. a few examples.

Yes, but just because something is the experience of the majority of persons doesn’t mean that any other experience is disordered. I don’t think majorities are particularly good evidence in this case.

What would be evidence? You are basically saying that the way attraction is primarily experienced between males and females who are sexually compatible in ways not experienced between those who are not is not evidence of the how sexual or romantic attraction expresses itself. what would be if not that? It is one thing to say that the majority would not be the standard of how ALL sexual attraction is experienced. it is quite another to say that they are not evidence of how it IS in fact experienced.

In that case, we should not have to rely on majorities. We should be able to demonstrate, without relying on individual experiences, that “romantic” actions require the complementary natures of men and women. I don’t know how one would go about arguing that.

The majority provide relevant data and that data is evidence of general patterns of human behavior. it cannot just be dismissed. moreover, these subjective experiences can be objectively analysed in so far as their natural purpose is concerned. what is the goal of that kind of exclusive focus on an individual if not partnering? and what is the goal of that partnering?

Then the answer must be “it depends”, right? It would depend entirely on our intention, not the acts themselves. So if SMGS’s intention in making out with someone was to communicate or facilitate agape love, how could it be sexual?

I think we must acknowledge that the specific actions do matter, if anyone here is going to argue that making out between persons of the same sex is not permissible, regardless of intention.

That attraction behind the making out was described and it certainly was a romantic one. if your goal is to defend the making out then it is a non starter from the description of smgs herself: that was the point of the discussion leading up to her accusing me of laying spiritual traps for her

 

[estesbob]

Yep, thats how I see it. Otherwise your entertaining destructive thinking already acknowledged as a problem. It can’t be anything but counter productive, Then to drag another into this is suspect to say the least.

That is a notable point . Even if one was to buy into the argument that you can cuddle and make out with a member of the same-sex without it being sexual in nature there’s no way you can know that is the same for the person you are engaging in the behavior with.

It would be like a person who doesn’t have a problem with alcohol giving a drink to an alcoholic because it isn’t a problem to himself

 

[SMGS127]

That is a notable point . Even if one was to buy into the argument that you can cuddle and make out with a member of the same-sex without it being sexual in nature there’s no way you can know that is the same for the person you are engaging in the behavior with.

It would be like a person who doesn’t have a problem with alcohol giving a drink to an alcoholic because it isn’t a problem to himself

…I’ve addressed this to so many posters I can’t even count, but I suppose people don’t read my posts, so I will post it again.

I would have a very high degree of communication with the person I was in the romantic friendship with. I’d also have a very high degree of trust in them as well. They’d basically be the secular definition of a girlfriend (though not the Catholic definition). I could absolutely be sure, because they would tell me when I asked. I’m pretty choosy about who I hang out with.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I cannot imagine how people of the same-sex making out is not a sin against chastity. It is homosexual behavior without a doubt.

It is not, however, an act of homosexual sex, which is precisely what the catechism condemns. It does not condemn any and every “behavior” conducted by a homosexual. The classical canonical interpretive principle at work here is odiosa sunt restrigenda: that which restricts should be interpreted in the most restrictive sense.

It is exactly like the alcoholic trying to sober up but looking for loopholes. Desperately looking for way that he can continue his behavior without the problems. I mentioned this in another thread but in AA we call this bargaining with yourself.

You’re making a category error: being attracted to people of the same-sex is not actually analogous to being addicted to a substance or a destructive behavior. There is no reasonable analogy between addiction and being same-sex attracted.

Also, the catechism would be hard-pressed to condemn same-sex couples living together in chastity since such an arrangement does not constitute a homosexual sexual act (again, the principle of odiosa sunt restrigenda in effect). Given your category error and your overly-broad assumptions regarding just what the catechism is prohibiting in this context, your analogy does not make much sense. It’s like saying: a same-sex attracted person seeking a relationship with his or her beloved that is characterized by mutuality, a depth of human intimacy, and chastity is exactly like an alcoholic who enjoys drinking a glass of water. Which doesn’t actually say very much.

When you put destructive behaviors behind you have to totally turn your back on the lifestyle. I can’t hang out in bars anymore. Most of my friends who were my drinking buddies are no longer my friends. Recognizing this fact is one of the crucial components of recovery.

Being attracted to someone you love and who loves you is not a destructive behavior. So how is a chaste same-sex attracted person to put behind themselves a behavior the catechism says is destructive (i.e., homosexual sex) but which they’ve never actually committed unless you’re asking them to see their desire for chaste human intimacy as destructive (which would be bizarre and, one could argue, cruel) or are asking them to feel responsible/guilty for something they’ve not actually done and may not actually even desire to do (which would also be bizarre and, one could argue, cruel)?

It seems these discussions often come down to folks defending their sensibilities, not necessarily defending any moral law. Folks say, “homosexuals should have friends, but they shouldn’t call themselves a couple.” Well, why not? There’s nothing immoral about chaste coupledom. Folks say, “all romantic intimacy is oriented to marriage, and since homosexuals can’t be married, they shouldn’t engage in any romantic intimacy.” Well, why should that be the case? In what way is salutary human intimacy–being physically, emotionally, spiritually and deeply loved, seen and accepted by one’s beloved in a relationship characterized by chastity and mutuality–in what way is such salutary human intimacy impossible to be conceived of as an end in itself, particularly for those for whom marriage cannot be an end to anything? In what way must the teleology of heterosexual romantic relationships inform or directly correspond to the teleology of chaste romantic homosexual relationships? Surely if we say that sexual acts are just for procreatively-inclined married opposite-sex couples, then we’re already admitting that there’s a profound difference between what a heterosexual couple may be for and what a homosexual couple may be for, so treating them as precisely identical as far as teleology is concerned (and finding that one of them “naturally” comes up short) is just as onerous as treating them as identical in other ways that would elide their differences and uniquenesses. How is it, then, that we keep defining homosexuality in terms of a deficient heterosexuality? Isn’t that similar to calling rugby a deficient form of soccer, because rugby doesn’t use the same rules soccer uses?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Kamaduck]

That was a wrong choice of words on my part: the attraction that arises in puberty for the opposite sex and which we experience in what we popularly call crushes is a romantic interest. It draws us to the other as both different and desirable and before this aspect enters our consciousness, we do not experience these “crushes”. If you are saying this is not true, I really would be interested apart from gay people, how else crushes are experienced except as attractions between sexually compatibles individuals. a few examples.

I can’t really help you there. I didn’t suddenly notice boys at a certain age; I was always curious about gender differences, and after puberty I very occasionally noticed a few specific boys. But that experience of “noticing” people wasn’t some kind of sudden, unique experience. It reminded me of wanting to be friends with someone, even though it was different.

What would be evidence? You are basically saying that the way attraction is primarily experienced between males and females who are sexually compatible in ways not experienced between those who are not is not evidence of the how sexual or romantic attraction expresses itself. what would be if not that?

To find evidence that a given action is inherently sexual (using your meaning of the term), I think we would need to show that the complementary male and female natures are required for it. The two examples that immediately come to mind are sex (which obviously requires a male and female in order for the act to be procreative) and parenting (since children need/benefit from the influence of both a father and a mother).

I don’t see how things like cuddling or going on dates are comparable to sex or parenting (which you will note are also activities exclusive to married couples). It’s not like you need to combine maleness and femaleness in order to properly complete cuddling, or something. That’s why I don’t understand the arguments that such things are inherently wrong for people of the same sex to engage in.

It is one thing to say that the majority would not be the standard of how ALL sexual attraction is experienced. it is quite another to say that they are not evidence of how it IS in fact experienced.

I don’t understand this bit. I thought I was saying the former.

The majority provide relevant data and that data is evidence of general patterns of human behavior. it cannot just be dismissed. moreover, these subjective experiences can be objectively analysed in so far as their natural purpose is concerned.

I’m not arguing that we should dismiss the majority. I’m saying that even if lots of people experience or believe something, that’s not enough evidence to show that other experiences are disordered, or that other ways of experiencing attraction cannot be ordered towards good ends.

what is the goal of that kind of exclusive focus on an individual if not partnering? and what is the goal of that partnering?

An excellent question. Maybe romantic attraction always involves a desire to “partner” with someone, though not necessarily in a sexual way. There could be non-sexual reasons for wanting a primary relationship like that.

For instance, suppose that this desire to be with a partner is one of the things that draws men and women together and helps create stable marriages and families, along with shared faith, sexual attraction, trust, respect, etc. All of these play different roles in the marriage. Apart from sexual attraction, the other things can also exist on their own, between unmarried individuals.

What if what we’ve been calling “romantic attraction” is actually in that category? Ie, it’s very useful for a marriage and would hopefully be present in one, but it can also be present in other circumstances, and ordered towards positive goals?

That attraction behind the making out was described and it certainly was a romantic one. if your goal is to defend the making out then it is a non starter from the description of smgs herself: that was the point of the discussion leading up to her accusing me of laying spiritual traps for her

SMGS has said that she is using “romance” as a synonym for “love”. She claims that making out is a way of expressing love that is NOT erotic or sexual in nature (so I don’t see why that would be a bad intention). Therefore, if making out between people of the opposite sex is always wrong, then there are two options:

1. SMGS is describing an impossible situation. Making out with someone can’t be a nonsexual way of expressing non-erotic love.
2. SMGS’s intentions are pure, but making out is always immoral between members of the same sex, so this is not an acceptable was for SMGS to communicate her love or strengthen an emotional bond.

My goal isn’t to defend same-sex making out (I don’t know whether it’s permissible). My goal here is to show that it isn’t only a question about attractions. There are certain things that simply are not permissible between members of the same sex, the most obvious one being sex. It’s wrong to entertain the desire for that.

I think that whether acting on romantic attraction towards members of the same sex is sinful would depend on whether the desired actions are sinful, and that’s why I keep bringing up actions.

 

[Bookcat]

making out is always immoral between members of the same sex
.

This one.

Just not something to be done.

Nor is one to “make out” with ones sibling, or cousin, or grandmother or toddler…etc. for some bonding…etc.

(Note though my post here is setting aside the moral nature of making out between a boyfriend and girlfriend)

 

[GaryTaylor]

You’re making a category error: being attracted to people of the same-sex is not actually analogous to being addicted to a substance or a destructive behavior. There is no reasonable analogy between addiction and being same-sex attracted.

No the analogy is accurate and your thinking above is incorrect.

Attracted to alcohol is not addicted to alcohol, And being addicted to either SSA or Alcohol is destructive. And while being attracted to either may not be.

 

[Kamaduck]

This one.

Just not something to be done.

Nor is one to “make out” with ones sibling, or cousin, or grandmother or toddler…etc. for some bonding…etc.

(Note though my post here is setting aside the moral nature of making out between a boyfriend and girlfriend)

That option makes some sense to me, especially in light of Cesar’s posts on the other thread. It could be that making out is reserved for marriage, or at least for relationships that could lead to marriage. If it is, that means that this particular attraction can’t be acted on, because the action is wrong. It doesn’t mean that all actions flowing from a romantic attraction are wrong, or that romantic attraction towards persons of the same sex is, in and of itself, disordered.

If acting on romantic attraction is always, always wrong, then I think we’ve got to show that having a romantic relationship- and by that I mean any sort of personal partnership or primary relationship, without commenting on the physical side of things- is something that necessarily requires the complementary male and female natures.

If it isn’t, I would think that such partnerships would be acceptable between people of the same sex. At that point, we would have to screen individual actions and judge whether those actions are sexual (requiring both male and female natures). Those things would be reserved for marriage or perhaps couples who might become married, and not for other partnerships.

Does that make sense?