The origin of love that homosexuals feel for one another

[LongingSoul]

You are back to asserting that ‘marriage’ means only what you want it to mean, nad that your definition must be forced on everyone else.

Marriage is an institution that pre-dates Christ and the Church. It has always served the generation, education and bloodline protection which have been important to ancient and modern man alike.

These lesser analogies demonstrate the role of ‘institutions’ for humanity. Would you call something a ‘school’ if it were not built for the purpose for education. Would you call something a hospital if it were not built for the purpose of healing? There is dangerous confusion and turmoil in claiming to be a thing when you serve a different end completely to that which you claiming.

 

[Rau]

You are back to asserting that ‘marriage’ means only what you want it to mean, nad that your definition must be forced on everyone else.

I assert that, by definition, Marriage is what marriage has always been. Do you believe that it IS something different to what I have described? If so, could you define it as you understand it? Or do you wish to change it - if so why, and to what?

 

[frobert]

But what has such “legal recognition” got to do with Marriage - which is that unique institution, intrinsically sexual, through which the society builds itself, and which to be effective, must be heterosexual…

Marriage and family in the old testament was a bit different.

Let’s take a peak at King David genealogy.

David’s genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3 says that he had 19 sons by his wives and concubines and one daughter, Tamar, whose mother isn’t named in scripture. David was married to Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacha, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah during the 7-1/2 years he reigned from Hebron. After he moved to Jerusalem, he married Bathsheba, who bore him four sons including the great King Solomon. Scripture says that David fathered a son with each of his first six wives, plus his four sons by Bathsheba make 10, leaving another nine sons whose mothers are presumed to be among David’s concubines since they aren’t named.

How about Abraham whose fist son Ishmael?. It doesn’t appear that sex was intrinsic to his marriage to Sarah. And how did Abraham treat his son Ishmael and Hagar after Issac was born?

Abraham got some food and a bottle of water. The bottle was made out of animal skin. He gave the food and water to Hagar. He placed them on her shoulders. Then he sent her away with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

What does all this have to do with same sex marriage? Not much but it does show that marriage and family in a different time was somewhat different than what is being defined here as marriage.

 

[DrTaffy]

Marriage is an institution that pre-dates Christ and the Church.

My point exactly. The very word comes from the latin and the ancient Roman culture in which it was applied to same sex couples, so cannot be what you describe.

(Fair warning, I am now replying to a different author)

I assert that, by definition, Marriage is what marriage has always been.

So since in ancient Rome it was not what you describe, it can not now be what you describe?

 

[LongingSoul]

Marriage and family in the old testament was a bit different.

Let’s take a peak at King David genealogy.

David’s genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3 says that he had 19 sons by his wives and concubines and one daughter, Tamar, whose mother isn’t named in scripture. David was married to Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacha, Haggith, Abital, and Eglah during the 7-1/2 years he reigned from Hebron. After he moved to Jerusalem, he married Bathsheba, who bore him four sons including the great King Solomon. Scripture says that David fathered a son with each of his first six wives, plus his four sons by Bathsheba make 10, leaving another nine sons whose mothers are presumed to be among David’s concubines since they aren’t named.

How about Abraham whose fist son Ishmael?. It doesn’t appear that sex was intrinsic to his marriage to Sarah. And how did Abraham treat his son Ishmael and Hagar after Issac was born?

Abraham got some food and a bottle of water. The bottle was made out of animal skin. He gave the food and water to Hagar. He placed them on her shoulders. Then he sent her away with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

What does all this have to do with same sex marriage? Not much but it does show that marriage and family in a different time was somewhat different than what is being defined here as marriage.

Even polygamous marriages served the generation, education and bloodline purity. (Ancestor veneration) was a critical aspect of all societies and marriage, proven by the fact that illegitimate children, even firstborns were disinherited or relegated to the bottom of the pile, behind the children of the marriage.

Other evidence supporting the fruitful ideal of marriage, is the rejection of polyandry (women taking many husbands) since this dynamic is severely limits/prevents the procreative nature of the sexual act. The Catholic Encyclopedia records its role as a last resort through history, where cultures practiced female infanticide.

The fruitfulness of sexual unions have always been the purpose that marriage is practiced in society.

 

[DrTaffy]

Would you call something a ‘school’ if it were not built for the purpose for education. Would you call something a hospital if it were not built for the purpose of healing?

Mischievous aside: we do talk about ‘schools’ of fish, and the original ‘hospitals’ were nearer to modern ‘hostels’ or poorhouses.

Words can both have more than one meaning, and change their meaning.

 

[frobert]

Even polygamous marriages served the generation, education and bloodline purity. (Ancestor veneration) was a critical aspect of all societies and marriage, proven by the fact that illegitimate children, even firstborns were disinherited or relegated to the bottom of the pile, behind the children of the marriage.

Other evidence supporting the fruitful ideal of marriage, is the rejection of polyandry (women taking many husbands) since this dynamic is severely limits/prevents the procreative nature of the sexual act. The Catholic Encyclopedia records its role as a last resort through history, where cultures practiced female infanticide.

The fruitfulness of sexual unions have always been the purpose that marriage is practiced in society.

Then you except the fact that marriage was different than the church definition of today ant that marital sex was not limited to one man with one woman which was the only point I was attempting to make.

Another way that it was different, that you might agree with, is that marriages were often arranged by their fathers leaving the women little say in whom they married, Under such arrangements it likely that many marriages were lacking in love as we know it today.

 

[LongingSoul]

Mischievous aside: we do talk about ‘schools’ of fish, and the original ‘hospitals’ were nearer to modern ‘hostels’ or poorhouses.

Words can both have more than one meaning, and change their meaning.

But you’re describing more a quirk of linguistics where a word is borrowed for some effect but not altering the original purpose of the institution. For example, we talk about a ‘marriage’ of minds, or a business ‘marriage’. It comes with an understanding that it is only providing a ‘flavour’ of something to enhance its specific purpose, not to change the original meaning of the word. If the original meaning were lost to the understanding, the word no longer has any real power or use. It would be redundant.

If homosexual people have private commitment ceremonies swapping their promises with other and call it ‘marriage’ in that way, that won’t undermine the institution too critically. But to change the original definition by law, having it pertain universally, is to invite it’s ultimate redundancy.

 

[LongingSoul]

Then you except the fact that marriage was different than the church definition of today ant that marital sex was not limited to one man with one woman which was the only point I was attempting to make.

The sexual union between man and woman has been an institution from day dot. Male and female He created them and He sent them forth to multiply. Christ raised the institution of marriage to a Sacrament and we now take very seriously, its capacity to reveal the nature of Gods great love for us through monogomy and lifelong fidelity.

Another way that it was different, that you might agree with, is that marriages were often arranged by their fathers leaving the women little say in whom they married, Under such arrangements it likely that many marriages were lacking in love as we know it today.

Again affirming that the primary purpose of marriage is the generation, education of offspring and family building… regardless of the presence of loving feelings.

 

[Rau]

So since in ancient Rome it was not what you describe, it can not now be what you describe?

You point to historical times and places that had a bad ending! But even so, in ancient Rome, in general the Romans regarded marriage as a heterosexual union for the purpose of producing children. And I suspect it was not that which brought them undone!

But, you didn’t answer my question, viz: "Do you believe that it [Marriage] IS something different to what I have described? If so, could you define it as you understand it? Or do you wish to change it - if so why, and to what? "

 

[clem456]

Another way to think of this from the Christian perspective:

God creates us out of love for us. He desires a relationship with human beings. Our sole purpose and destiny is be fully united with God. God brings forth human existence **out of **love and calls us to love. The whole purpose of our existence is to return his love to him, to fully know him, love him, serve him…in other words, **to populate **what we call heaven, to exist, as a unity of body and soul. in unity with God. We are people who exist, with a body, and with a soul. We are a people.

Homosexuality, whatever else you want to say about it, is not ordered to this reality. The sexual aspect aside, whatever good you can say about the love between any two people, (and there are many good things you can say), the reality of human participation in the kingdom of God requires the sexual union of a man and woman. Human beings cannot exist as body and soul in eternity with God without the participation of heterosexual union.

This is a beautiful reality, this participating in the creation of other human beings who are designed to live eternally in relationship with God, body and soul. It’s a reality unique to heterosexuality, and should be recognized as such. Not recognizing it is to deny the truth of who we are at the most fundamental level. However good the intentions, the current attempt to deny this truth is big big trouble for human society. Even setting aside the specific subject matter for a moment, this attempt is big trouble simply because it denies an obvious, absolute, and unalterable truth. Falsehood always works against God’s will to the detriment of human flourishing. To claim that a homosexual relationship is the same as a heterosexual union is just simply false. Despite any similarities that can be pointed out, it is fundamentally not the same thing.

 

[frobert]

The sexual union between man and woman has been an institution from day dot. Male and female He created them and He sent them forth to multiply. Christ raised the institution of marriage to a Sacrament and we now take very seriously, its capacity to reveal the nature of Gods great love for us through monogomy and lifelong fidelity.

I have never disagreed with the Sacrament, all I was attempting to clarify is that in the old testament customs and notions of procreation and marriage are not the same as in the new testament.

Again affirming that the primary purpose of marriage is the generation, education of offspring and family building… regardless of the presence of loving feelings.

This was the second point I was attempting to clarify. The unitive factor of love is not integral to marriage leaving only the potential of procreation as the justification for sexual intercourse.

So we are in agreement.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have never disagreed with the Sacrament, all I was attempting to clarify is that in the old testament customs and notions of procreation and marriage are not the same as in the new testament.

Regarding the Old Testament… according to Thomas Aquinas, we can distinguish between ceremonial, judicial and moral precepts of the law. The ceremonial and judicial precepts were bound by the pre Christian customs and needs of Gods people however the moral precepts remain valid for all time. So while you will see some variants of marriage in the OT, you have never seen marriage as divorced from it’s primary procreative funtion marked by the union of male and female.

This was the second point I was attempting to clarify. The unitive factor of love is not integral to marriage leaving only the potential of procreation as the justification for sexual intercourse.

So we are in agreement.

The unitive dimension is inherent to the act of marriage. *“This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact” (“Humanae Vitae,” No. 12). *

I think that you mistaking the ‘unitive dimension’ with the *feeling of love but what the unitive consists of is the vow, the commitment, the love of Christ and the love of the divine and natural order. Hopefully it all meets in that brilliant loving feeling that we associate with ‘lovers’, but that brilliant loving feeling is not *what defines the unitive in the marriage act.

 

[frobert]

Regarding the Old Testament… according to Thomas Aquinas, we can distinguish between ceremonial, judicial and moral precepts of the law. The ceremonial and judicial precepts were bound by the pre Christian customs and needs of Gods people however the moral precepts remain valid for all time. So while you will see some variants of marriage in the OT, you have never seen marriage as divorced from it’s primary procreative funtion marked by the union of male and female.

All I was clarifying was, a different time and different sexual customs.

The unitive dimension is inherent to the act of marriage. *“This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage pact” (“Humanae Vitae,” No. 12). *

I think that you mistaking the ‘unitive dimension’ with the *feeling of love but what the unitive consists of is the vow, the commitment, the love of Christ and the love of the divine and natural order. Hopefully it all meets in that brilliant loving feeling that we associate with ‘lovers’, but that brilliant loving feeling is not *what defines the unitive in the marriage act.

You are correct I did use a liberal definition of unitive with that goes beyond the procreative dimension. I probably did so because, for me, something strikes me as unwholesome in a procreative act that lacks genuine love which as we discovered is not integral to licit sexual acts.

A most enlightening discussion.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark, is the type of relationship you describe one that you simply postulate for purposes of the discussion or one that you observe as commonplace?

I’m grateful for your questions, Rau.

The answer to your first is: both, more or less. Granted, the way I’ve described this sort of relationship is in largely ideal terms, but I don’t find what I’ve described as impossibly ideal–no ideal should be impossible or it would lead to despair.

I’ve also observed relationships that appear to me to follow the outline of this sort of relationship as well. Whether or not they conform exactly to what I’ve described I cannot say–when I’m introduced to a couple and even after I get to know them, I don’t tend to assume they’re having sex, nor do I ask. I would rather be naive and assume the best than a mere cynic, assuming the worst. What I can say for these relationships is this: it’s clear that they have a humanizing effect on those engaged in them–an effect I can only attribute to love.

Are these relationships commonplace? Certainly not. And I imagine that’s the case for any number of reasons, but chief among them is that there are few models for this sort of thing. It requires a little imagination and a bit of faith.

The point, is to be able to create these models, being able to articulate a vision of what being same-sex attracted and chaste might be like. Too often on these forums, the vision that is doled out to same sex attracted people is something like this: you’re afflicted because you find yourself attracted to people. You need to embrace the suffering of your “cross”: you must get used to not being able to share your life with anyone. That’s God’s special task for you because he loves you. No one in the world should ever be able to say that they have a special claim on your affections, and you should never say that anyone else has a special claim on yours. We’ll consider you heroic for dealing with this “cross,” and its only on those especially heroic terms that this community can accept you. We insist that you be construed as a special hero-victim or a special kind of monster should you fail–you can never be construed as a regular sort of human being.

So the sort of relationship I’ve described in this thread is an attempt to articulate an alternative vision which starts with this: it’s okay to be human. It’s okay to be on the human adventure. You can’t do everything you might want to do. No one can. But here’s what you can do: you can live fully into your humanity, just like anyone else, by learning how to love, just like everyone else. You can fall in love. You can get your heart broken. You can find a home in someone else. All that and more, by God’s grace. You can grow in virtue not by cutting yourself off from yourself, but by devoting yourself completely in love to the good of others, including someone with whom you may fall in love and who may fall in love with you. You may stumble. You may get hurt. You may hurt yourself or your loved ones. And that’ll be hard for everyone involved. But you can forgive and be forgiven. You can recommit yourself to a life of love. Granted, none of this human adventure business will be particularly easy–we’re seeing through a glass darkly after all and we’ll be getting it wrong more often than we get it right. But that’s part of the adventure. It won’t be easy, but it shouldn’t be onerous either. There’s a real possibility of joy beyond imagining at the heart of it all.

[CONTINUED…]

 

[Deo_Volente]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

If you observe it, do you observe it in both homosexual and heterosexual couples?

I’ve observed it more in couples in which the partners were same-sex attracted. Again, perhaps that’s to do with there being few models of this sort of relationship available while heterosexual couples have the marriage model after which their relationships may be patterned.

But there are some models. Blessed John Newman and Ambrose St. John certainly had a relationship in which they each held a unique claim on the other’s affections. They had a home together, they were buried together. And while the matter of their sexual orientation is an open question with respect to some scholars, I make no judgments in that regard. Certainly David and Jonathan is oft-cited in these sorts of discussions–and I mention them not to infer anything regarding their sexuality (I think the suggestion that they were “gay” is a pretty ridiculously anachronistic and ahistorical piece of revisionism at best), but to say they are not cited without good reason. Their relationship was deeply physically affectionate and characterized by unique devotion–Scripture tells us their souls were indeed knit together and that they made some sort of covenant with each other. Should not same-sex attracted folks be capable of such relationships, too? You may argue–well, D&J at least were clearly heterosexual, not homosexual (to be honest I find either term ill-suited to any understanding of how the ancients understood sexuality…and increasingly irrelevant to our own) and this sort of covenental, physically affectionate friendship is just like any other friendship because it was chaste and none of that actually meant anything because it was…just what they did back then. Is it to be our contention, then, that these sorts of physically demonstrative, covenental and chaste relationships are okay for heterosexual men to engage in, but not same-sex attracted folks? And what would be our reasoning behind such a contention: that same-sex attracted folks might get the wrong idea, or that they don’t actually understand chastity or what boundaries in a relationship might mean, or maybe they’re just unworthy of physical affection and incapable of understanding covenants? Perhaps same-sex attracted people would be too apt to experience “that brilliant loving feeling” that they have no right to experience in any legitimate or moral way? Needless to say, those all sound like weird and suspect arguments to me.

Would your argument change if the relationship involved the (homosexual) participants desiring, but for sake of argument, not acting on, mutual sexual release

No, not really. I would imagine that the couple would have to deal with this in some way or another, but principally through honest and loving dialogue that affirms their commitment to chastity and to each other’s well-being. Is it our general custom to prohibit chaste opposite-sex attracted people from having such thoughts and desires in the course of dating?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

VERO CRAS!

 

[TStokes]

romantically[/I] of the opposite sex.

I take issue with the above line… If we romatically love a person of the opposite sex could that not be a potential spouse? If we cannot romantically love someone of the opposite sex how do we find a spouse?

 

[TStokes]

This is my belief: We should be against homosexual acts and gay marriage but we must love the person they are still our fellow man/women and therefore our equal. Is that right or wrong? Also I have a family member who is gay and if he were to get married is it wrong for me to attend?(keep in mind I am 16 with Methodist parents so I have no choice)

 

[frobert]

I take issue with the above line… If we romatically love a person of the opposite sex could that not be a potential spouse? If we cannot romantically love someone of the opposite sex how do we find a spouse?

There is a trap we get into when we try to explain love with reason. We can talk about the sinfulness of non marital and non procreative sex and can say that some loves are illicit but to say that a love doesn’t exist, whether true or, will not make sense to most people other than those who study particular CC teachings.

Love as a physiological reaction, a feeling, or an emotion is real. And the evolutionary psychology and biological basis of love cannot be denied. …

Philosophically, when expressed in whatever metaphysical manner, love loses its value. This is an rookie offshoot from Barthes’ Lover’s Discourse: when love becomes a discourse, “I” am reduced to a projection of “your” thoughts. And what about thoughts? Because thoughts are not feelings, and anything that is expressed comes in the form of language and semiotics, which are both socially learned. And the cycle repeats.

Source: The Sociologist

 

[TStokes]

There is a trap we get into when we try to explain love with reason. We can talk about the sinfulness of non marital and non procreative sex and can say that some loves are illicit but to say that a love doesn’t exist, whether true or, will not make sense to most people other than those who study particular CC teachings.

Love as a physiological reaction, a feeling, or an emotion is real. And the evolutionary psychology and biological basis of love cannot be denied. …

Philosophically, when expressed in whatever metaphysical manner, love loses its value. This is an rookie offshoot from Barthes’ Lover’s Discourse: when love becomes a discourse, “I” am reduced to a projection of “your” thoughts. And what about thoughts? Because thoughts are not feelings, and anything that is expressed comes in the form of language and semiotics, which are both socially learned. And the cycle repeats.

Source: The Sociologist

That confuses me, Can you romantically love a boy/ girl friend who you see as a prospective spouse?