Plato, Aristotle and Socrates all agree homosexual acts are disgraceful

[inocente]

The flaw in your logic is that by no means has the world universally come to accept sodomy, nowhere near to the degree it has learned to condemn slavery. Both practices are unnatural. Those who have accepted slavery are closer to those who accept sodomy.

Gays used to be put to death (Lev 20:13) so the world has been moving in another direction for a long time, just taking a while to get there.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

**Gays used to be put to death (Lev 20:13) so the world has been moving in another direction for a long time, just taking a while to get there. **

History moves in cycles. The error of so many liberals like yourself is that the world is always getting better so long as liberals have their way. They thought so in Germany in the 1920s, when liberalism was all the rage and Berlin was the homosexual capital of Europe.

Then came the Nazis.

 

[DrTaffy]

Again, your lack of scholarship is obvious.

So that’ll be a ‘no’ to the request “Keep it polite, please” will it? :tsktsk:

If you have proof that he did write something, please offer it.

It is your assertion that we know that he did not write anything, as opposed to nothing he wrote having survived. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so bearing that in mind feel free to back up your assertion if you think it relevant to this thread.

**It is far from ‘obvious’ that Plato shared the opinion of the Athenian Stranger in Laws or if he agreed more with Appollodorus in Symposium. Aristotle’s views are equally ambiguous. **

Obviously not obvious to you, even if it is virtually obvious to just about everyone else.

Source or evidence for this assertion? Given two apparently conflicting opinions both expressed by Plato, you seem to just be picking the one you agree with. The closest you get is:

Scholars generally agree that the Stranger in Laws is a mouthpiece for the views of Plato himself. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Again, it is up to you to support your assertions, not just make them and demand that others disprove them. That being said, of course the Athenian Strager is ‘a mouthpiece’ for Plato’s views as are all the characters in his dialogues. The point you need to support is that the Stranger is somehow a more faithful representative of Plato’s views than other characters.

If you can point to evidence that at least some (I won’t hold you to the sweeping "generally) Scholars do feel that the Stranger is somehow meant to ‘be’ Plato himself, I would be interested. Preferably without insulting my education.

FWIW both my (much maligned) education and the oracle of Google suggest that if anything the Stranger represents Socrates, who is otherwise strangely absent from this dialogue.

 

[Linux]

What does it mean to “be” a homosexual?

I’m not sure if the Catechism still uses the term “Homosexual”, but its an unfortunate use of words. Nobody objectively has the identity of a homosexual. It is not a real sexuality and it is not a fair description for everybody who happens to have same sex attractions or SSA for short. Homosexuality is both a philosophical and political designation. Philosophically speaking, in-order to honestly embrace that identity you have to believe that sexual attraction is that which fundamentally defines your sexuality; which leaves out your gender as some kind of arbitrary and irrelevant extension which has no value in terms of defining your sexual identity. But the problem is, if that were truly the case, we would have to say that a sexual attraction to children or animals or even inanimate objects are true sexualities which is ridiculous.

In reality, objectively speaking, it is your gender identity that fundamentally defines human sexuality. Gender identity is essentially complementary in so far as the nature of a man is functionally ordered to end of having sexual relations with the nature of a woman. Your sexuality begins with that fact, and thus any sexual attraction that does not reflect your nature as a man or a woman is a disorder of that nature. Thus if you truly value your gender identity, and believe in the idea of being true to what you are, then you cannot possibly engage in or support homosexual behaviour. However that does not mean that we should not “tolerate” the sexual choices of others. Of course SSA is not a choice. However Homosexuality is a Choice, and it is an irrational one that fundamentally ignores the value of what it means to be a man or a women. This much is evident.

To embrace the identity of a Homosexual is to embrace a philosophical world view. It is not merely a label describing who you are attracted to. In that respect it would be contradictory for Catholic to say that it is okay to be a homosexual.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

DrTaffy

Again, it is up to you to support your assertions, not just make them and demand that others disprove them. That being said, of course the Athenian Strager is ‘a mouthpiece’ for Plato’s views as are all the characters in his dialogues.

Plato cannot be said to have embraced as his own views things so contradictory as all the ideas expressed by Socrates and his opponents throughout the dialogues. Sorry, that just doesn’t make sense.

If you assert the positive statement that Socrates was a writer, please prove it. You cannot, whereas if he was a writer, it is reasonable to infer that some of his works should have survived, or at least been mentioned by Xenophon, Plato, or Aristotle.

Did not happen. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[mlanning72]

mlanning

**Check the Catechism. It clearly states there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual. **

From the Catechism:

**2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. **

A loving attraction to a person of the same sex is not immoral. But sodomy is, and such attractions frequently result in the regular exercise of sodomy. As St. Paul says:

I Corinthians 6:9-10 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators … nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Fair enough. With the definition you presented my statement out of context is incorrect. However referring to my over simplified definition, my statement was correct.

Do not be fooled yourself that being- emphasis on the word being- a homosexual is immoral. It is not. Sodomy is and on that we can agree. In fact we have been agreeing this entire time just simply using different words. It is the homosexual acts that are against God’s law. Being a homosexual is not.

 

[sw85]

Aristotle also argued that women should get less food, was not allowed to have personal wealth (it should go automatically to her husband) and that women should not have free speech. Plato had very interesting thoughts on race (views that could be quite popular in the 50’s in some southern states of the USA). Indeed good company for Catholics to be in.

Duh. Women can make do with less food, being of slighter build and, in classical societies, being responsible for less physically intensive tasks.

I don’t think patriarchy or restriction of the franchise are bad ideas, and again, Aristotle’s endorsement of them should be seen as a point in their favor. You seem to be saying that his illiberalism is proof of his idiocy. But what if your liberalism is proof of yours?

To be precise, the word arose in the late 1700’s. I can give you documentation, but I’m in a bit of a rush, getting ready to attend my daughter’s birthday dinner.

I’d be interested in seeing that. My understanding was it was invented recently as a medical diagnosis and as part of the trend toward medicalization of social problems around the turn of the 20th century, but maybe some other language invented it even earlier.

Like I said, in classical literature the distinction is kind of odd. “Homosexual” wasn’t really used. Actually the words we sometimes translate today that way were more like “gay” the way children use them – as a signifier of effeminacy, with connotations of disapproval.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy

Again, it is up to you to support your assertions, not just make them and demand that others disprove them. That being said, of course the Athenian Strager is ‘a mouthpiece’ for Plato’s views as are all the characters in his dialogues.

Plato cannot be said to have embraced as his own views things so contradictory as all the ideas expressed by Socrates and his opponents throughout the dialogues. Sorry, that just doesn’t make sense.

That’s not what I mean by all the characters in his dialogues acting as his mouthpieces - rather that all his characters, even those used to set up an antithesis to his thesis, are being used to present his argument.

Now if you assert that the Athenian Stranger enjoys some unique status as ‘being’ Plato himself or representing his opinions more faithfully than Apollodorus, it is up to you to provide some support.

If you assert the positive statement that Socrates was a writer, please prove it.

Read it again. I do not make that assertion, you assert that we know that Socrates did not write anything. The burden of proof is on you, but it seems to be one you are used to ignoring!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

DrTaffy

Now if you assert that the Athenian Stranger enjoys some unique status as ‘being’ Plato himself or representing his opinions more faithfully than Apollodorus, it is up to you to provide some support.

I don’t have to provide such support. Plato provides the endorsement of his views in Laws by not bothering to refute them. Surely you can understand that Plato would not deliberately present views opposed to his own without bothering to refute them. Do you take him for a fool?

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Reading all of this, I can’t help but mention that many philosophical “experts” think that Plato himself may have been gay.

IF (again, IF) true, then even Plato himself knew that his personal preference should not be foisted on the common public at large and was a detriment and corruption to society and country.

Folks also forget the Cynics-----read up on Diogenes Laertius and some of the writings of Lucian (especially his paean to his teacher Demonax)---------they contain examples of Cynics like Diogenes and others denouncing effeminacy and homosexuality as immoral.

Just saying.

Yep.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Ordinary

Reading all of this, I can’t help but mention that many philosophical “experts” think that Plato himself may have been gay.

Would you care to name one?

 

[GodHeals]

Philosophically speaking, in-order to honestly embrace that identity you have to believe that sexual attraction is that which fundamentally defines your sexuality; which leaves out your gender as some kind of arbitrary and irrelevant extension which has no value in terms of defining your sexual identity. But the problem is, if that were truly the case, we would have to say that a sexual attraction to children or animals or even inanimate objects are true sexualities which is ridiculous.

In reality, objectively speaking, it is your gender identity that fundamentally defines human sexuality. Gender identity is essentially complementary in so far as the nature of a man is functionally ordered to end of having sexual relations with the nature of a woman.

Thank you for sharing… I don’t like that people use those terms “GAY” or “HOMOSEXUAL” or “BI-SEXUAL” or those others you listed above, “PEDOPHILE” or whatever as if it is a label. It is like people are labeling themselves with an identity that God has not given them, no where in scripture. I have read in scripture that Paul says, some of you were… at least he is talking about the behavior, maybe not the attraction. Although, i have read people who have been healed of SSA.

Interesting you say that SSA is a separate label from the homosexual or gay label, which is for the behavior. It seems a lot of people don’t make that distinction, even Bishops in the Church. I think this could negatively impact our culture and put the salvation of souls as risk. I have read that labeling someone “SSA AND homosexual or gay” leads to that person feeling hopeless, locked in their current situation. Labeling people can lead to hopelessness. I believe God transforms and heals hearts and labeling people is unnecessary, especially with unscientific labels.

I think I heard some Catholics say there is no such thing as “sexual identity” as far as Church teaching is concerned. I saw you used that term above. Probably saying there is such a thing as sexual identity, alludes to there being different types with the before mentioned labels.

Thanks!

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

New King James Version (NKJV)

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[mlanning72]

Also, for the record, none of you can prove Socrates even existed and for that matter Plato would also be a challenge to factually prove.

 

[mgseamanjr]

There is something clearly wrong with equating the “Symposium” with the “Laws.” The latter dialogue is a very serious work while the former is a comic work with lots of absurdities in it (like the origin of the belly-button and other playful and ridiculous theories). The speakers in the “Symposium” reflect differing viewpoints, some of which are clearly absurd and therefore not those of Plato. You can’t cherry-pick statements from it and state “This was the view of Plato” since he may have had another point in mind, such as to highlight the absurd views of his contemporaries. It is far less likely that Plato did a 180-degree turn on his views of homosexual relations, as proposed by Dr. Taffy. Therefore, any rational study of these dialogues must conclude that what Plato writes in the “Laws” must be taken more seriously and likely to be the views of the author.

 

[2015huntmj]

Ah, my friends, how difficult it seems to ensure that the working of an institution shall be as unquestionable as its theory! Presumably it is with states as it is with human bodies – one cannot prescribe one definite treatment for one subject which involves no physically injurious consequences along with its beneficial effects. For example, these physical exercises and common meals you speak of, though in many ways beneficial to a city, provide dangerous openings for faction, as is shown by the cases of the Milesians, Boeotians, and Thurians. And, in particular, this practice is generally held to have corrupted the ancient and natural rule in the matter of sexual indulgence common to mankind with animals at large, and the blame for these corruptions may be charged, in the first instance, on your two cities and such others as are most devoted to physical exercises. Whether these matters are to be regarded as sport, or as earnest, we must not forget that this pleasure is held to have been granted by nature to male and female when conjoined for the work of procreation; the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust of pleasure. And you know it is our universal accusation against the Cretans that they were the inventors of the tale of Ganymede; they were convinced, we say, that their legislation came from Zeus, so they went on to tell this story against him that they might, if you please, plead his example for their indulgence in this pleasure too. With the tale we have no further concern, but the pleasures and pains of communities and of private lives are as good as the whole subject of a study of jurisprudence. (Laws I 636a-d)

That was exactly my own meaning when I said I knew of a device for establishing this law of restricting procreative intercourse to its natural function by abstention from congress with our own sex, with its deliberate murder of the race and its wasting of the seed of life on a stony and rocky soil, where it will never take root and bear its natural fruit, and equal abstention from any female field whence you would desire no harvest (Laws VIII 838e-839a).

 

[1AugustSon7]

Over 1,000 species, but only one displays homophobic behavior.

63,649 vertebrates

And I will just laugh at your quaint belief that animals can have phobias.

And finally, an animal cannot know the way a human can and does know what his or her genitals and reproductive system is actually and properly suited for. Because we can and do know this sort of thing, we rightly condemn all instances of sodomy as irrational or simply unnatural. Such acts are also marked for being instrinsically disgusting and revolting and so shameful that no one dares to describe them, lest they cause the audience to grow sick or want to throw up, which would not serve their purposes in trying to get sane, decent and rational people to accept them.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

“Was Plato gay?”

Speaking as scholar in ancient philosophy, I will say that this is a very strange question, since the ancient’s ideas of sexuality aren’t the same as our ideas.

There is strong evidence from the dialogues that Plato, like a huge number of his fellow Athenian aristocrats, was physically attracted to teenage boys. (Socrates’s attraction to boys is explicit in the dialogues; you’d have to be blind to miss it). This attraction existed in the context of teacher/student mentoring relationships, though both Socrates and Plato acknowledged how tremendously harmful these relationships could be if they actually involved sexual activity.

Plato tends to think that actually having sex is pretty much always a bad idea, but that sexual attractions can be stepping stones to bring us into contact with something much more beautiful than a human body: Goodness and Truth itself. It’s about sublimation.

 

[inocente]

63,649 vertebrates

And I will just laugh at your quaint belief that animals can have phobias.

And finally, an animal cannot know the way a human can and does know what his or her genitals and reproductive system is actually and properly suited for. Because we can and do know this sort of thing, we rightly condemn all instances of sodomy as irrational or simply unnatural. Such acts are also marked for being instrinsically disgusting and revolting and so shameful that no one dares to describe them, lest they cause the audience to grow sick or want to throw up, which would not serve their purposes in trying to get sane, decent and rational people to accept them.

:yawn: You woke me. I last posted on this thread on Jan 2.

Heteros engage in all manner of truly disgusting and revolting practices, some so shameful that no one dares to describe them, lest they cause the audience to grow sick or want to throw up.

But let’s ignore heteros as they outnumber homosexuals thirty to one and, as all self-appointed sane, decent and rational people know, might makes right.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Heteros engage in all manner of truly disgusting and revolting practices, some so shameful that no one dares to describe them, lest they cause the audience to grow sick or want to throw up.

Because two wrongs make a right. I can’t help but notice the level of completely childish reasoning homosexualism has sunk us to.

But let’s ignore heteros as they outnumber homosexuals thirty to one and, as all self-appointed sane, decent and rational people know, might makes right.

I can produce coherent and consistent arguments that don’t involve me sounding like a little child having a fit, firstly. Second, all acts of sodomy are contrary to our reason, nature and hence our dignity: they degrade anyone who engages in them. Indeed, the jeuvenile popularization of them - done in large part by the porn industry - is undoubtedly half the reason why we are in this shameful mess. But God is not the author of confusion.