Is romantic attraction and expression sexual in nature?

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

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.

Gary, in what way can you logically justify describing a same-sex attracted person as addicted to same-sex attraction? That honestly makes no sense to me. Addiction and its processes are not involved. Also, same-sex attracted people are not attracted to same-sex attraction: that’s overly redundant and meaningless. They’re simply same-sex attracted.

Moreover, how can you equate being attracted to alcohol to being attracted to a human being? Surely human beings and alcohol are categorically different things?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[SMGS127]

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?

Out of curiosity, let’s go with sexual complementarity for a moment as the deciding factor. What about making out requires sexual complementarity? Do men or women not have mouths? Are they so drastically different that making out has a different complementarity in heterosexuals than homosexuals? I maintain that the cultural meaning of making out is relativistic, and that we live in a fairly erotic age due to the suppressive nature of the Puritan movement. It has nothing to do with complementarity.

As for Cesar’s posts, I remind you that the Church explicitly stated that Her teachings about mortal sin were specific to passionate kissing done for the purpose of erotic delight, which ties back into lust.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

The “inclination” “itself” is disordered. Indeed the romantic attraction itself is disordered. (ordered attraction is male for female and female for male). It is opposite sexes that are oriented towards each other in that kind of relationship in an ordered way. A guys romantic -relationship- attraction for another guy is disordered. It is not ordered properly. Guy-guy couples are not something to be entered into.

What is needed and good and healthy is “friendships”.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Grace & Peace!

Gary, in what way can you logically justify describing a same-sex attracted person as addicted to same-sex attraction? That honestly makes no sense to me. Addiction and its processes are not involved. Also, same-sex attracted people are not attracted to same-sex attraction: that’s overly redundant and meaningless. They’re simply same-sex attracted.

Moreover, how can you equate being attracted to alcohol to being attracted to a human being? Surely human beings and alcohol are categorically different things?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

We are talking about processing emotions on an individual level. It doesn’t make a difference if we are talking SSA, adultery, drugs or alcohol. We are talking at what point does your own thinking become counter productive in this case according to the Church.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

We are talking about processing emotions on an individual level. It doesn’t make a difference if we are talking SSA, adultery, drugs or alcohol. We are talking at what point does your own thinking become counter productive in this case according to the Church.

Is it your argument, then, that being attracted to a human being represents an emotional process that is categorically identical to being addicted to alcohol?

The analogy between being same sex attracted and being addicted to alcohol works only if alcohol addiction is categorically the same as being attracted to a human being. If they are not categorically the same (and I argue that they are not), then the analogy doesn’t work. You argue that they are the same. You said as much above. But you’ve not yet indicated how you come to this conclusion.

Also, how is being same-sex attracted (which is an attraction, not an act, nor a sin), analogous to the act of adultery (which is an act and a sin), or how are either drugs or alcohol (which are things, not attractions, nor acts, nor sins), analogous to either? Or in what way can we reasonably describe being attracted to a human being in the same terms as we would describe being addicted to adultery or drugs or alcohol, barring of course, an overwhelming cynicism that can only think of human relationships in terms of addictions?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[One_point]

Grace & Peace!

Is it your argument, then, that being attracted to a human being represents an emotional process that is categorically identical to being addicted to alcohol?

The analogy between being same sex attracted and being addicted to alcohol works only if alcohol addiction is categorically the same as being attracted to a human being. If they are not categorically the same (and I argue that they are not), then the analogy doesn’t work. You argue that they are the same. You said as much above. But you’ve not yet indicated how you come to this conclusion.

Also, how is being same-sex attracted (which is an attraction, not an act, nor a sin), analogous to the act of adultery (which is an act and a sin), or how are either drugs or alcohol (which are things, not attractions, nor acts, nor sins), analogous to either? Or in what way can we reasonably describe being attracted to a human being in the same terms as we would describe being addicted to adultery or drugs or alcohol, barring of course, an overwhelming cynicism that can only think of human relationships in terms of addictions?

Under the Mercy,ĥ
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

If they were identical we would not be talking of an analogy: What definition of analogy are you working off of? Analogy implies they are sufficiently similiar for comparison but not identical

 

[Kamaduck]

Out of curiosity, let’s go with sexual complementarity for a moment as the deciding factor. What about making out requires sexual complementarity? Do men or women not have mouths? Are they so drastically different that making out has a different complementarity in heterosexuals than homosexuals? I maintain that the cultural meaning of making out is relativistic, and that we live in a fairly erotic age due to the suppressive nature of the Puritan movement. It has nothing to do with complementarity.

As for Cesar’s posts, I remind you that the Church explicitly stated that Her teachings about mortal sin were specific to passionate kissing done for the purpose of erotic delight, which ties back into lust.

And you may be right. Nothing about making out, by itself, requires complementarity.

But I think it could be that making out is too closely tied to sex, which does require it. I know that you have said that it is its own action. And I believe that for you, it can be. But I also know that people who express that are very rare, and that most people think of making out as definitely sexual. I know that there are a lot of asexual people who like cuddling and even kissing, but get uncomfortable at the thought of making out with someone, so maybe it’s not purely “sensual”. I know that people will get into arguments about that. The people I talk to in real life seem to think of it as sexual, or at the very least, likely to lead to sex. Part of me has to wonder if all of that is coincidence.

As far as the quote goes, I’m not really sure I know what “erotic delight” is. It could literally mean lust or sexual gratification, but I haven’t actually seen a definition, and I know from experience that certain words don’t mean the same thing in Church documents as they do in common speech.

Does any of that mean that you’re not allowed to make out with your girlfriend? I have no idea. I really don’t. It’s enough to make me pause, but not enough to actually convince me. So for the moment, I’m just going to admit that I don’t know, and entertain hypotheticals on both sides. I realize that that’s a completely unsatisfactory position for you, since this issue matters to you personally, but it’s all I’ve got.

I guess I want to try to determine whether romantic partnerships are in and of themselves OK. I still think they are, but if they’re not, then making out is a moot point anyway.

 

[SMGS127]

The “inclination” “itself” is disordered. Indeed the romantic attraction itself is disordered. (ordered attraction is male for female and female for male). It is opposite sexes that are oriented towards each other in that kind of relationship in an ordered way. A guys romantic -relationship- attraction for another guy is disordered. It is not ordered properly. Guy-guy couples are not something to be entered into.

What is needed and good and healthy is “friendships”.

At the risk of repeating myself…

catholic-ew.org.uk/Home/News/Benchmark/Cherishing-Life-2004/%28language%29/eng-GB

In so far as the homosexual orientation can lead to sexual activity which excludes openness to the generation of new human life … it is, in this particular and precise sense only, objectively disordered. However, it must be quite clear that a homosexual orientation must never be considered sinful or evil in itself.

 

[Bookcat]

At the risk of repeating myself…

At the risk of repeating *myself * see all my posts above and in the other threads

(any reading of a local document that is at odds with the Teaching of the Church is running in the order of misreading it.

The point of the document is that the inclination - the fact of its being there is not itself sinful. The persons are not “disordered” or “sinful” just cause that disordered inclination is present. Though the inclination itself is disordered. The sin comes in when such an inclination is willed…is acted upon to various degrees.)

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

If they were identical we would not be talking of an analogy: What definition of analogy are you working off of? Analogy implies they are sufficiently familiar for comparison but not identical

Perhaps then you can answer the question, One point: in what way are alcohol and people sufficiently “familiar” such that making an analogy between alcohol addiction and attraction to another person is not a simple category error?

I understand the principle of analogy, One point. Analogies work best, though, when the things analogized are actually categorically similar: i.e., if what we’re talking about are two forms of sin, for instance, or two kinds of dangerous or addictive behavior. But an attraction to a person is not a sinful act, nor is attraction to a person a behavior, dangerous, addictive or otherwise. So to compare same-sex attraction to sin (adultery) or behaviors that are dangerous or addictive (drug/alcohol abuse) doesn’t make sense–a categorical error is being made when such analogies/comparisons are made.

You wouldn’t say, for instance: the emotional processes of attraction and addiction are so similar that it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about drugs or adultery or faith or God or murder or puppies, it’s all the same. No. Clearly, category errors are being made.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[One_point]

Grace & Peace!

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.

Is this a rule for interpreting doctrine ie faith and moral law (catechism) or rather discipline ie the canon law? Someone forgot to tell saint Paul before he wrote down: “flee temptation” into the scripture…

 

[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…

 

[Bookcat]

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

 

[Bookcat]

At the very top of this Forum is a sticky from the Moderators about this topic:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

2347 The virtue of chastity blossoms in friendship. It shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends, who has given himself totally to us and allows us to participate in his divine estate. Chastity is a promise of immortality. Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one’s neighbor.* Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all.* It leads to spiritual communion.

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

As I have been saying – friendship.

 

[Kamaduck]

The “inclination” “itself” is disordered. Indeed the romantic attraction itself is disordered. (ordered attraction is male for female and female for male). It is opposite sexes that are oriented towards each other in that kind of relationship in an ordered way. A guys romantic -relationship- attraction for another guy is disordered. It is not ordered properly. Guy-guy couples are not something to be entered into.

What is needed and good and healthy is “friendships”.

OK, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that we drop the phrase “romantic relationship”, and keep everything else the same.

Let’s say that we’ve got two friends who mean the world to each other. They’ve got a special name for each other (maybe they refer to each other as their “copilot” or something, I don’t know). They speak to each other every day. Maybe they live together. Maybe they’ve got a joint bank account and have worked it out so they can visit each other in the hospital. They support each other when they’re feeling sad. They cuddle (like siblings would, since I have no idea what “romantic cuddling” is). They watch movies together. Every friday they go to an activity, maybe go out to eat together, and then come home. They feel like they can talk to each other about anything, and they have promised to take care of each other if any sort of emergency happens. Each of them is the most important human in the other’s life.

Would you say that this is inappropriate?

 

[LongingSoul]

OK, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that we drop the phrase “romantic relationship”, and keep everything else the same.

Let’s say that we’ve got two friends who mean the world to each other. They’ve got a special name for each other (maybe they refer to each other as their “copilot” or something, I don’t know). They speak to each other every day. Maybe they live together. Maybe they’ve got a joint bank account and have worked it out so they can visit each other in the hospital. They support each other when they’re feeling sad. They cuddle (like siblings would, since I have no idea what “romantic cuddling” is). They watch movies together. Every friday they go to an activity, maybe go out to eat together, and then come home. They feel like they can talk to each other about anything, and they have promised to take care of each other if any sort of emergency happens. Each of them is the most important human in the other’s life.

Would you say that this is inappropriate?

If they are inclined to regard each other as lovers… even chaste lovers, which naturally calls for a degree of commitment and exclusivity… rather than disinterested friends, who while walking alongside each other, have no ‘couple’ ties… then they are indulging their disordered inclination in an inappropriate way. Yes.

 

[One_point]

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.

You would be the rare individual if puberty did not bring on a new and markedly different appreciate of the opposite sex as a result of beginning to appreciate oneself as a sexual being and being quite different from the opposite sex in that respect.

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).

That standard would fail. It is the same one heretics use to reject church reasoning on the matter of non-procreative sex. For example sex as a conjugal meeting of complementary genital parts requires male and female body parts. But they would say, that is no reason that OTHER conjugal acts could not be done! They would say that there are other purposes such as pleasure and closeness and while creating a child requires male and female body parts, giving and receiving pleasure does not and nothing should stop them from pursuing that pleasure for its sake just because a baby doesn’t result from it! So using this as a principle is unworkable: erotic acts do not “require” male and female, only making babies does. One must rely on other principles to determine why ONLY fruitful sex can be performed. Why potential children must ALWAYS be a part of it and not just one of the goals.

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.

You also do not need to combine maleness and femaleness to achieve erotic pleasure yet erotic desire is only licit in marriage.

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.

good ends generically are not in any case necessarily the moral qualifier if they are not the properly ordered end. Practically every human endeavor sinful or moral has some good end driving it.

There is simply no way of saying that what is the standard human way is irrelevant to questions of what is not standard or abnormal. About disordered, the natural purpose determines that.

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.

Such as? Its always easy to dismiss any argument with reference to intangible "could be"s if we don’t ground them to reality. What would be the natural purpose of such exclusive emotional partnering? Do we have such examples in nature besides mating?

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.

Indeed they can exist on their own. As can erotic pleasure or non-procreative sex. But what would nature have in mind to draw two people to exclusive partnering? Shared faith, trust, respect are all aspects of friendship and communal living. they are not tied to the exclusive partnering. something else must be the more essential element or the main “point” of this partnership besides these.

Your post was so long. I will adrees the rest on the next post.

 

[LongingSoul]

Grace & Peace!

Perhaps then you can answer the question, One point: in what way are alcohol and people sufficiently “familiar” such that making an analogy between alcohol addiction and attraction to another person is not a simple category error?

I understand the principle of analogy, One point. Analogies work best, though, when the things analogized are actually categorically similar: i.e., if what we’re talking about are two forms of sin, for instance, or two kinds of dangerous or addictive behavior. But an attraction to a person is not a sinful act, nor is attraction to a person a behavior, dangerous, addictive or otherwise. So to compare same-sex attraction to sin (adultery) or behaviors that are dangerous or addictive (drug/alcohol abuse) doesn’t make sense–a categorical error is being made when such analogies/comparisons are made.

You wouldn’t say, for instance: the emotional processes of attraction and addiction are so similar that it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about drugs or adultery or faith or God or murder or puppies, it’s all the same. No. Clearly, category errors are being made.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

The objectively disordered inclination to sexual attraction to same sex is more analgous with the objectively disordered inclination to be sexually attracted to children or beasts. That doesn’t go down well in conversations though. The inordinate attraction to the illicit satisfaction gotten from alcohol however does bear many of the same difficulties that the disordered inclination to indulge same sex coupling reserved by nature and God, as only good in the complimentarity represented by male and female. Also the physical and psychological effect of giving into disordered inclinations both have the pitfalls of lust.

 

[One_point]

Grace & Peace!

Perhaps then you can answer the question, One point: in what way are alcohol and people sufficiently “familiar” such that making an analogy between alcohol addiction and attraction to another person is not a simple category error?

I understand the principle of analogy, One point. Analogies work best, though, when the things analogized are actually categorically similar: i.e., if what we’re talking about are two forms of sin, for instance, or two kinds of dangerous or addictive behavior. But an attraction to a person is not a sinful act, nor is attraction to a person a behavior, dangerous, addictive or otherwise. So to compare same-sex attraction to sin (adultery) or behaviors that are dangerous or addictive (drug/alcohol abuse) doesn’t make sense–a categorical error is being made when such analogies/comparisons are made.

You wouldn’t say, for instance: the emotional processes of attraction and addiction are so similar that it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about drugs or adultery or faith or God or murder or puppies, it’s all the same. No. Clearly, category errors are being made.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

They are similar to me in the fact that they both represent an involuntary attraction that is not according to the design of nature.