What is the homosexual inclination?

[chrysostim83]

Like Elizabeth said: attraction = inclination

“Homosexual orientation” as you mean it (attraction to people of the same sex) as separated from “inclination to an act”-- this meaning as you try to propose it-- contradict one another.

If an attraction to the same sex do not constitute ANY inclination to sexual act then it is no longer “homosexuality”. Instead it is called friendship. Thus, the term homosexual orientation can’t separate “attraction” from “inclination to act”. If an attraction is not sexual, it is a friendship. If an attraction is sexual then it will SURELY have some sexual inclination.

I wonder if this applies equally to what I would call “heterosexuality.” Is it true or not that if an attraction to the opposite sex does not include any inclination to specific sexual acts then it is no longer heterosexuality but friendship?

Consider again the young, unmarried heterosexual couple. Since they are not married, their feelings for each other, if they involve desires for specific sexual acts, are clearly disordered and stand in need, therefore, of purification. Suppose the couple succeed in purifying their feelings for each other. Would they then become “just friends,” or would their relationship retain more depth or intimacy than that?

Or consider a man and a woman living in an irregular marriage with children. For the sake of their children they decide to stay together, but, perhaps after being admonished by their parish priest, they strive to live as brother and sister. In that situation, any inclination to sexual activity would be disordered, since it would not correspond to the reality of their circumstances. Suppose, then, they succeed in purifying their feelings of all desire for sexual activity with each other. What becomes of their relationship then? Is it mere friendship, or does it run much deeper than that?

Instinctively, I shy away from referring to relationships like these as “friendships” because, whether this is a feature of my own personal idiolect or of the culture that has informed my use of language, “friendship” seems to connote a certain distance which conflicts with the descriptions given above. In the end, though, I guess it doesn’t really matter so much what these sorts of relationships are called, provided we manage to keep in plain sight their depth and intimacy.

About orientation, one of the reasons for holding onto the concept even after purging inclination from its definition, is that it helps to explain the unique depth and intimacy in the relationships we’re talking about and how, while most people want to share this intimacy with an opposite sex other, a number of other people want to share it with a same sex other.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Romance doesn’t always include sexual act. This is true. But romance itself is part of sexual attraction and or relationship.

Erotic feeling doesn’t always ends up in sexual act. But erotic feeling is also part of sexual attraction and or relationship.

I’d like to add: although sexual attraction does not always end up with sexual act, sexual attraction-- if flourish-- it will become sexual act, or at least it will go to sexual direction.

If an attraction is not sexual, it will not go to such direction.

Human being is capable to “be attracted” by all sorts of things. Even “good genuine friendship” needs some attraction. Attraction to other human beings is part of human capability to socialize. Good relation in friendship can be very intense, yet the attraction is not sexual, and therefore there is no “sexual goal”.

Very good explanation, as Elizabeth has done as well in her posts.

If two same gender people attracted to one another, and none of them has no sexual inclination toward one another, then such attraction is called friendship.

Isn’t it curious how same-sex friendship seems to have been forgotten in all this over-analysis of sexual attraction, inclination, and orientation? If there is no element of romance and/or sexual tension between two people of the same sex, this is the most likely if not the only explanation why they would want to spend any time together in a voluntary social setting.

There seems to be too much twisting to put out the understanding that homosexuality is not necessarily about sex. The syllable sex is smacked right in the middle of the word! Just as in the word heterosexuality. It is part of the very definition itself.

Like Elizabeth said: attraction = inclination

“Homosexual orientation” as you mean it (attraction to people of the same sex) as separated from “inclination to an act”-- this meaning as you try to propose it-- contradict one another.

If an attraction to the same sex do not constitute ANY inclination to sexual act then it is no longer “homosexuality”. Instead it is called friendship. Thus, the term homosexual orientation can’t separate “attraction” from “inclination to act”. If an attraction is not sexual, it is a friendship. If an attraction is sexual then it will SURELY have some sexual inclination.

It can’t be any clearer than that. Thanks for your post.
,

 

[francisca]

Thank’s InsearchofGrace. Obviously somebody still think it was not very clear

I wonder if this applies equally to what I would call “heterosexuality.” Is it true or not that if an attraction to the opposite sex does not include any inclination to specific sexual acts then it is no longer heterosexuality but friendship?

Consider again the young, unmarried heterosexual couple. Since they are not married, their feelings for each other, if they involve desires for specific sexual acts, are clearly disordered and stand in need, therefore, of purification. Suppose the couple succeed in purifying their feelings for each other. Would they then become “just friends,” or would their relationship retain more depth or intimacy than that?

Or consider a man and a woman living in an irregular marriage with children. For the sake of their children they decide to stay together, but, perhaps after being admonished by their parish priest, they strive to live as brother and sister. In that situation, any inclination to sexual activity would be disordered, since it would not correspond to the reality of their circumstances. Suppose, then, they succeed in purifying their feelings of all desire for sexual activity with each other. What becomes of their relationship then? Is it mere friendship, or does it run much deeper than that?

Friendship between a man and a woman are different compared to friendship between same-gender, because this kind of friendship-- even in the absence of sexual attraction-- always have potential to become sexual. The reason is simple: the essence of sex is the differentiation of reproduction organs. Thus genuine friendship between male and female will always have sexual potential in theory, even if in reality both parties do not have sexual thoughts (no inclination to sexual act to one another).

On the opposite scenario, same gender friendship which constitute no sexual inclination-- this kind of friendship has no sexual potential whatsoever. Only when the parties have sexual inclination-- only then-- when the relationship become (homo)sexual.

About orientation, one of the reasons for holding onto the concept even after purging inclination from its definition, is that it helps to explain the unique depth and intimacy in the relationships we’re talking about and how, while most people want to share this intimacy with an opposite sex other, a number of other people want to share it with a same sex other.

Again, because of lack of biological sexual potential, it is not possible to “purge” inclination to act sexually-- as you put it-- without purging homosexual concept too.

Moreover, act of sex is not always related to “how deep” a relationship is.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Isn’t it curious how same-sex friendship seems to have been forgotten in all this over-analysis of sexual attraction, inclination, and orientation? If there is no element of romance and/or sexual tension between two people of the same sex, this is the most likely if not the only explanation why they would want to spend any time together in a voluntary social setting.

Hi, InSearch. I don’t know that it’s that curious at all…given that what we’re trying to figure out, in part, is whether or not a romantic attraction to someone of the same sex is possible without also desiring sex with that person. I.e., is it possible for someone to desire to be in a *particular kind of relationship with someone of the same sex which is actually and qualitatively deeper *than what the catechism labels “disinterested friendship,” a relationship in which the chaste union of which Chrysostim spoke is desired. If it is possible, do we continue to call it by the name of friendship?

If such a thing is, in fact, impossible, as you and francisca suggest, does it not behoove us to consider what this might mean for friendship and romance generally? I.e., is it impossible for a husband to be romantically attracted to his wife without also wanting to have sex with her? Or, when they’re not having sex, are they just embarked on a disinterested friendship?

Friendship is, of course, very important. And there are, of course, various kinds and depths of relationships, kinds and depths of companionship which it would be awkward to call merely disinterested friendships. But it seems as if it’s your argument that, if sex is not involved, all relationships of affection or attraction (that are perhaps not blood relationships) are just disinterested friendships. I think that part of what Chrysostim and I are trying to figure out is: is that true? And if it is true, then I think it’s our hope that we would be able to point to either a line of reasoning or some sort of evidence that would suggest that it’s true. As opposed to just announcing, “this is true,” and thinking that such announcements amount to investigation or reflection.

There seems to be too much twisting to put out the understanding that homosexuality is not necessarily about sex. The syllable sex is smacked right in the middle of the word! Just as in the word heterosexuality. It is part of the very definition itself.

What is being twisted, InSearch? Read the posts up to this point. For the most part, what Chrysostim and I have sought to do is put forward some proposals. It’s our intention to then unpack what those proposals might mean. There’s been no twisting of anything yet. (By the way, but I believe the “sex” in “sexuality” refers not to acts, but to certain biological facts which inform identity and relationship within specific cultural contexts. My “sex” is “male” because I have male genitalia, not because I desire sex with men.)

francisca:

Moreover, act of sex is not always related to “how deep” a relationship is.

Of course not, francisca. No one ever said it was. Let me repeat that. No one ever said it was. Let me say it again. No one ever said it was.

A very deep relationship does not require sex, but such a relationship is also not necessarily a disinterested friendship.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I wonder if this applies equally to what I would call “heterosexuality.” Is it true or not that if an attraction to the opposite sex does not include any inclination to specific sexual acts then it is no longer heterosexuality but friendship?

I would say yes, this would be a friendship. How strange that you use quotes for heterosexuality.

Consider again the young, unmarried heterosexual couple. Since they are not married, their feelings for each other, if they involve desires for specific sexual acts, are clearly disordered and stand in need, therefore, of purification. Suppose the couple succeed in purifying their feelings for each other. Would they then become “just friends,” or would their relationship retain more depth or intimacy than that?

Or consider a man and a woman living in an irregular marriage with children. For the sake of their children they decide to stay together, but, perhaps after being admonished by their parish priest, they strive to live as brother and sister. In that situation, any inclination to sexual activity would be disordered, since it would not correspond to the reality of their circumstances. Suppose, then, they succeed in purifying their feelings of all desire for sexual activity with each other. What becomes of their relationship then? Is it mere friendship, or does it run much deeper than that?

Your two examples denote a history,where the partners later assumed a different quality in relating to the other. Of course, the subsequent relationship still would have depth and intimacy, although the sexual activity may have ceased. It is quite ordinary to say theirs have developed or changed to a friendship or brotherly/sisterly relationship.

Instinctively, I shy away from referring to relationships like these as “friendships” because, whether this is a feature of my own personal idiolect or of the culture that has informed my use of language, “friendship” seems to connote a certain distance which conflicts with the descriptions given above. In the end, though, I guess it doesn’t really matter so much what these sorts of relationships are called, provided we manage to keep in plain sight their depth and intimacy.

About orientation, one of the reasons for holding onto the concept even after purging inclination from its definition, is that it helps to explain the unique depth and intimacy in the relationships we’re talking about and how, while most people want to share this intimacy with an opposite sex other, a number of other people want to share it with a same sex other.

It is hard to understand your proposal that homosexual orientation explains or helps to explain the “unique, deep and intimate element” in a relationship between members of the same sex that does not include romantic or erotic desire.

If you are only referring to couples with a history of illicit/licit sexual activity as in your examples above, I would see why you would have your description retain “uniqueness, depth, and intimacy.” But for new relations, they cannot apply.

In this other situation, a close, pure friendship is known to develop and is sustainable between two people of the same sex in their lifetime. Of course, not all same-sex friendships are close and pure. Friendship is this pleasant personal social relationship that we have for all others outside spouses, sexual partners and kin. Note that I use close and pure instead of close, deep and intimate as adjectives, because the latter two adjectives are more appropriate to describe sexual and committed partners, or partners who used to be sexually involved and committed to each other.

If there is any potential for a homosexual relationship to develop, whether you call it orientation, inclination, tendency, or attraction, it crosses over to more than the friendship level, the difference being if it is acted on or not to be considered a sin. Orientation, attraction, inclination, and tendency are not sins by themselves; however, they are still disordered.

Anyway, let me say this. It appears that you are trying hard to analyze what is not difficult to analyze and understand. If there is no romantic or erotic element between two people of whatever orientation, and these two people like each other, they are having an age old non-familial, non-marital relationship in the long experience of men and women, which is FRIENDSHIP. Just this old but timeless, beautiful association and affinity among men and women that add joy and delight to their lives. Love and affection, yes, but uncomplicated by romance and sex!
,

 

[chrysostim83]

Friendship between a man and a woman are different compared to friendship between same-gender, because this kind of friendship-- even in the absence of sexual attraction-- always have potential to become sexual.

So, to rephrase what you’re saying, is the idea that the sexual complementarity that exists between every man and every woman makes the kinds of friendship in my examples deeper and more intimate than the kinds of friendship that can exist between two men or two women?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Hi, InSearch. I don’t know that it’s that curious at all…given that what we’re trying to figure out, in part, is whether or not a romantic attraction to someone of the same sex is possible without also desiring sex with that person. I.e., is it possible for someone to desire to be in a *particular kind of relationship with someone of the same sex which is actually and qualitatively deeper *than what the catechism labels “disinterested friendship,” a relationship in which the chaste union of which Chrysostim spoke is desired. If it is possible, do we continue to call it by the name of friendship?

If such a thing is, in fact, impossible, as you and francisca suggest, does it not behoove us to consider what this might mean for friendship and romance generally? I.e., is it impossible for a husband to be romantically attracted to his wife without also wanting to have sex with her? Or, when they’re not having sex, are they just embarked on a disinterested friendship?

Romance between a husband and wife necessarily extends to non-sexual activity! Gestures of affection or cuddling that most wives seek from their husbands without the expectation it will lead to sex would be part of such non-sexual activity.

I don’t get what you and chrysostim are suggesting, that with such activity, it would mean a disinterested friendship. Disinterested friendship as used in the Catechism was in the context of same-sex relations where there is no objective on one individual to use the other as a sex object, or there is no hoping in one to have a romantic/erotic relationship. Why would you and chrysostim think this (a disinterested friendship) would be the quality of the non-sexual activity between a man and a woman married to each other?

Friendship is, of course, very important. And there are, of course, various kinds and depths of relationships, kinds and depths of companionship which it would be awkward to call merely disinterested friendships. But it seems as if it’s your argument that, if sex is not involved, all relationships of affection or attraction (that are perhaps not blood relationships) are just disinterested friendships. I think that part of what Chrysostim and I are trying to figure out is: is that true? And if it is true, then I think it’s our hope that we would be able to point to either a line of reasoning or some sort of evidence that would suggest that it’s true. As opposed to just announcing, “this is true,” and thinking that such announcements amount to investigation or reflection.

That answer to that question is obvious. If there is no romance or sexual end being entertained in a beginning relationship, it is a friendship! Or disinterested friendship in the language of the Catechism. What else would it be?

I hope my post to chrysostim above further clarifies my response to the question.

What is being twisted, InSearch? Read the posts up to this point. For the most part, what Chrysostim and I have sought to do is put forward some proposals. It’s our intention to then unpack what those proposals might mean. There’s been no twisting of anything yet. (By the way, but I believe the “sex” in “sexuality” refers not to acts, but to certain biological facts which inform identity and relationship within specific cultural contexts. My “sex” is “male” because I have male genitalia, not because I desire sex with men.)

Elizabeth and Francisca already said how common definitions are not enough for your purposes. I simply used the word twisting. In particular, this statement by chrysostim is problematic:

About orientation, one of the reasons for holding onto the concept even after purging inclination from its definition, is that it helps to explain the unique depth and intimacy in the relationships we’re talking about and how, while most people want to share this intimacy with an opposite sex other, a number of other people want to share it with a same sex other.

As francisca countered,

“Homosexual orientation” as you mean it (attraction to people of the same sex) as separated from “inclination to an act”-- this meaning as you try to propose it-- contradict one another.

If an attraction to the same sex do not constitute ANY inclination to sexual act then it is no longer “homosexuality”. Instead it is called friendship. Thus, the term homosexual orientation can’t separate “attraction” from “inclination to act”. If an attraction is not sexual, it is a friendship. If an attraction is sexual then it will SURELY have some sexual inclination.

By the way, I hope you are giving me more credit than what you seem to imply in your post. I read the posts in this thread which is an offshoot of another where I was a participant as well, if you remember.

Further, I am not confused with the different uses of the word ‘sex.’ It’s funny that you felt you needed to explain that sex in sexuality not referring to the act and that your sex as being male is about genitalia. C’mon now, Mark. If I were filling out a form and I had to enter an answer under the sex category, I would not put “often” or “almost never.”

The reason I mentioned the syllable sex in homosexuality and heterosexuality is to emphasize the understanding of most people: what differentiates homosexual(ity) from heterosexual(ity). Unequivocally, it has something to do with SEX attraction or activity with a certain kind of partner, of the opposite sex OR same sex kind.
,

 

[chrysostim83]

I would say yes, this would be a friendship. How strange that you use quotes for heterosexuality.

I should comment on this, because it might clear up a lot of my posts here. The quotation marks around “heterosexuality” weren’t meant to signal any sort of impropriety in the word; I have a long-standing habit of putting words I want to talk about in double quotes to show that they’re standing in for themselves rather than the things they usually stand for. For example, Cicero had two legs but “Cicero” has six letters. I could switch to single quotes or italics if it would help.

Your two examples denote a history,where the partners later assumed a different quality in relating to the other. Of course, the subsequent relationship still would have depth and intimacy, although the sexual activity may have ceased. It is quite ordinary to say theirs have developed or changed to a friendship or brotherly/sisterly relationship.

A slight confusion may be lurking here. In the setup of the first example, the unmarried couple only desired to engage in sexual acts with each other, but they hadn’t actually slept together.

The developments in the relationships given in the examples were meant to show that desires for sex are not a necessary part of the attractions that draw two people into a deep/intimate relationship or that help them to stay together. The history aspect adds a touch a realism to the case, since, with our fallen nature, our attractions typically stand in need of purification in one respect or another. However, remember there are other examples I offered earlier on: in the case of the gay asexual man and Daphnis and Chloe, there is no desire for sex from the beginning.

It is hard to understand your proposal that homosexual orientation explains or helps to explain the “unique, deep and intimate element” in a relationship between members of the same sex that does not include romantic or erotic desire.

I think the assumption was that the romantic or erotic attractions are there, and they may contain an element of desire for sexual activity, but that this element is not essential to what romantic/erotic attractions are in themselves. To use the old philosophical terminology, the desires for sex aren’t differentia (i.e., they don’t determine the kind of attraction) though they may be inseparable accidents of those attractions. If you’re familiar with those terms, they may throw a little light on what the examples were all about.

Anyway, although a few more examples might come up in the discussion, it would be good to examine a bit more closely the arguments summarized in the OP. I’ll try to rephrase them in another post soon. Hopefully they’ll be able to steal the spotlight from the conclusions they were built to support.

 

[francisca]

However, remember there are other examples I offered earlier on: in the case of the gay asexual man and Daphnis and Chloe, there is no desire for sex from the beginning.

How can it be a case of “gay asexual”? If Daphnis and Chloe has no desire for sex from the beginning, then they are friends.

Anyway, although a few more examples might come up in the discussion, it would be good to examine a bit more closely the arguments summarized in the OP. I’ll try to rephrase them in another post soon. Hopefully they’ll be able to steal the spotlight from the conclusions they were built to support.

I will be happy to read your next post.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Before we move on, can I attempt to summarize what we have so far in light of recent discussions?

A. First, for the purposes of this discussion, these premises appear to be pretty uncontroversial (note that I removed premise 5):
1–Sex which is either non-procreative* or which takes place outside of marriage is an evil.
2–A desire for something evil is an intrinsically disordered desire.
3–Homosexual sex is neither procreative, nor can it take place in marriage–it is therefore an evil.
4–The desire for homosexual sex represents an intrinsically disordered desire.

• Procreative sex is sex in which the male orgasm occurs during vaginal penetration, regardless of the possibility that either the man or the woman involved will contribute to the conception of a child, but assuming that the lack of such a possibility is the result of nature or, at the very least, is not the result of a desire to willfully prevent the conception of children.

B. The following ideas were proposed:
1–Being romantically, or erotically attracted to someone need not include an inclination to- or desire for sexual relations.
2–If such a desire for such relations is present, however, it does not necessarily follow that it is intrinsic to the attraction; the attraction is to a person, not to an act.
3–Homosexual or same-sex attractions, therefore, are not necessarily disordered as they do not require a desire for- or an inclination toward homosexual sex.
4–We are better off distinguishing the attraction to people from the inclination to an act, and we might do well to call the former a “homosexual orientation” while retaining the language of a “homosexual inclination” for the latter.
C: The proposed ideas did not quite get off the ground because of the following objections:
1–Romantic or Erotic attraction to a person is impossible without desiring sexual acts with that person.
2–Friendship is the relationship between two people in which there is no desire for sexual acts between two people who are otherwise attracted or attractive to each other (there is no romantic or erotic attraction in friendship and thus no desiring of sexual acts).
3–The only exception to C1 is a marriage relationship. Only in the marriage relationship is it possible for two people to share an erotic or romantic attraction without the usual presence of a desire for sex.
4–However, in every relationship between a man and a woman, there will be sexual tension because of the potential for romantic or erotic attraction and the concomitant desire for sex.
4a–Genuine friendship between men and women naturally acknowledges this sexual tension, even though the acknowledgment of it, coupled with persistence in the friendship, represents an open-ness to disordered desire (the possibility of desiring sex outside of marriage–see A1 and A2 above). The friendship, however, is no less genuine.
5–In every relationship between people of the same sex in which this sexual tension is present, however, the line of friendship has been crossed, the friendship compromised, and at least one of the people in the friendship relationship has entered dangerous territory. Such a “friendship” amounts to a near occasion of sin at the very least.
Does section C pretty much sum up the objections so far? I just want to keep us all on the same page.

Thank you all for your patience.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[francisca]

Grace & Peace

C: The proposed ideas did not quite get off the ground because of the following objections:

1–Romantic or Erotic attraction to a person is impossible without desiring sexual acts with that person.

Not true.

I said romantic and erotic feelings are parts of sexual attraction, thus those will follow sexual direction (goal) as the relationship flourish. It is possible that the relatiohship ends without any occurance of any sexual desire/act.

So I would say:
C1-- It is possible to have romantic/ erotic feelings without inclination towards sexual act for the time being. However, romantic and erotic feelings are part of sexual attraction, thus they-- if the relationship flourish-- will be transform into sexual act in it’s due time.

2–Friendship is the relationship between two people in which there is no desire for sexual acts between two people who are otherwise attracted or attractive to each other (there is no romantic or erotic attraction in friendship and thus no desiring of sexual acts).

I would prefer to define it this way:

C2-- Friendship is a kind of relationship between people that goes outside sexual direction. Parties in friendship do feel attraction toward one another, but the attraction does not include romance, erotic feelings and/or ANY other sensual/sexual feelings.

3–The only exception to C1 is a marriage relationship. Only in the marriage relationship is it possible for two people to share an erotic or romantic attraction without the usual presence of a desire for sex.

Disagree.
Something like that may/ can happen outside marriage as well.

4–However, in every relationship between a man and a woman, there will be sexual tension because of the potential for romantic or erotic attraction and the concomitant desire for sex.

I would call it “potential” not necessarily “tension”. Before the tension (and everything else) is the biological potential.

So I would say:

C4-- In every relationship/ friendship between a man and a woman there is always sexual potential, which do not exist in same gender relationship/ friendship.

4a–Genuine friendship between men and women naturally acknowledges this sexual tension, even though the acknowledgment of it, coupled with persistence in the friendship, represents an open-ness to disordered desire (the possibility of desiring sex outside of marriage–see A1 and A2 above). The friendship, however, is no less genuine.

Not true.

The man and the woman in the relationship/ friendship sometimes do not have any sexual tension between them, eventhough biologically they have potential. Man and woman are “aware” of their own gender and the gender of the other. This awareness do not automatically generate sexual tension. Human beings are capable to socialize with many-many people of the opposite sex without having to have any sexual tension with the oppostite sex.

So I would say:

C4a-- Men and women naturally aware of their own gender and the gender of the others around them. Even so, genuine friendship between men and women are possible without having to go through any sexual tension, therefore stay genuine and pure friendship despite they are of the opposite sex.

5–In every relationship between people of the same sex in which this sexual tension is present, however, the line of friendship has been crossed, the friendship compromised, and at least one of the people in the friendship relationship has entered dangerous territory. Such a “friendship” amounts to a near occasion of sin at the very least.

C5-- In every relationship between people of the same sex where there is some sexual tension, as long as all parties do not act on the tension, the relationship can go on as genuine friendship.

There is no sin in friendship, but there is sin in homosexual relationship.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Francisca, your post was massively helpful. Thank you. If you’ll permit me, I’d like to take a stab at editing your re-wordings, if only for the sake of consistency. As ever, let me know if I get something wrong:

C: Objections:
1a–It is indeed possible to have a romantic/erotic attraction to someone without desiring sex with them.
1b–However, given that a romantic/erotic attraction can play a key role in disposing one to desire sex, it is only a matter of time before such an attraction leads to such a desire.
2a–Friendship is a relationship between people that excludes a sexual dimension.
2b–Parties in a friendship do feel an attraction to one another, but the attraction is not of a romantic, erotic, or sexual nature.
3a–In every relationship (including friendships) between a man and a woman, there is an awareness of a possible sexual dimension or potential.
3b–People are naturally aware of their own gender and the gender of the others around them. This is the genesis of the aforementioned awareness of a sexual dimension or potential. This potential can cause sexual tension. This tension is not, however, a necessary outgrowth of the awareness.
3c–If this sexual tension is not dissipated when it arises, it has the potential to change the relationship either by destroying the friendship or by leading to a romantic/erotic attraction.
4–In every relationship between people of the same sex in which sexual tension is present, the relationship can be considered a genuine friendship as long as the tension is dissipated.
Does that reflect your understanding of the objections so far, Francisca?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[francisca]

Grace & Peace!

… if only for the sake of consistency. As ever, let me know if I get something wrong:

C: Objections:

1a–It is indeed possible to have a romantic/erotic attraction to someone without desiring sex with them.
1b–However, given that a romantic/erotic attraction can play a key role in disposing one to desire sex, it is only a matter of time before such an attraction leads to such a desire.

comment for C1b :

It’s not “only a matter of time”. It can be a matter of time only (in some cases), but it can also a matter of many things in the relationship/ friendship before “romance/ erotic attraction” turn into desire to have sex.

Talking about “time” it can mean “years and years”. Thus many-many things can happen in those “time”.

Romantic/ erotic attraction is not always necessary in sexual-act.

So I would say:

C1b-- romantic/ erotic attraction is part of sexual attraction, not always essential in sexual act.
C1b.a.-- despite romantic/ erotic attraction is not essential in sexual act plus those attraction may not always end in sexual act, romantic/ erotic attraction will ALWAYS follow sexual direction which may end in sexual act.

2a–Friendship is a relationship between people that excludes a sexual dimension.
2b–Parties in a friendship do feel an attraction to one another, but the attraction is not of a romantic, erotic, or sexual nature.
3a–In every relationship (including friendships) between a man and a woman, there is an awareness of a possible sexual dimension or potential.
3b–People are naturally aware of their own gender and the gender of the others around them. This is the genesis of the aforementioned awareness of a sexual dimension or potential. This potential can cause sexual tension. This tension is not, however, a necessary outgrowth of the awareness.
3c–If this sexual tension is not dissipated when it arises, it has the potential to change the relationship either by destroying the friendship or by leading to a romantic/erotic attraction.
4–In every relationship between people of the same sex in which sexual tension is present, the relationship can be considered a genuine friendship as long as the tension is dissipated.

comment for point C3c and C4:

I’m not sure about the choice word “dissipated” in point C3c and point C4, because I checked it in dictionary, it can mean to “disperse (v. tr)” but it can also mean “to indulge in intemperate pursuit of pleasure (v. intr)”.

I think the meaning of “dissipated” in your point C3c can be intepreted differently than the word “dissipated” in your point C4

thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=dissipate

dis·si·pate *(ds-pt)
v. dis·si·pat·ed, dis·si·pat·ing, dis·si·pates
v.tr.

1. To drive away; disperse.
2. To attenuate to or almost to the point of disappearing: The wind finally dissipated the smoke. See Synonyms at scatter.

a. To spend or expend intemperately or wastefully; squander.
b. To use up, especially recklessly; exhaust: dissipated their energy. See Synonyms at waste.
4. To cause to lose (energy, such as heat) irreversibly.
v.intr.

1. To vanish by dispersion: The dark clouds finally dissipated.
2. To indulge in the intemperate pursuit of pleasure.

Please choose other more definitive word than “dissipated”

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Amen.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Hi, I would like to propose that it is possible for two people of the same gender to be brought together by attraction, but the love existing between the can be agape.

I am a gay man. I have no interest in sex with a man. Those two statements are compatible. I probably have a very different understanding of love from you all. To cuddle, to be held, to breath in his rich smell, these are things I consider as part of love. To carve beautiful, intricate things of wood, products of my labor, to give it to him, to see the smile on his face, this too is love. To hold his hand, for us to pray, to ponder the deep wondrous mysteries of the Churh, this too is love.

I guess what I am trying to say is that a romantic love can be agape (to understand what I mean by agape, read Deus Caritas Est).

 

[chrysostim83]

It seems like now would be an unnatural place to try to reboot the OP’s arguments, so I’ll stick to trying to gain a deeper appreciation for the objections that have been advanced so far.

As of Francisca’s last post, they stand as follows:
1a–It is indeed possible to have a romantic/erotic attraction to someone without desiring sex with them.
1b-- romantic/ erotic attraction is part of sexual attraction, not always essential in sexual act.
1b.a.-- despite romantic/ erotic attraction is not essential in sexual act plus those attraction may not always end in sexual act, romantic/ erotic attraction will ALWAYS follow sexual direction which may end in sexual act.
2a–Friendship is a relationship between people that excludes a sexual dimension.
2b–Parties in a friendship do feel an attraction to one another, but the attraction is not of a romantic, erotic, or sexual nature.
3a–In every relationship (including friendships) between a man and a woman, there is an awareness of a possible sexual dimension or potential.
3b–People are naturally aware of their own gender and the gender of the others around them. This is the genesis of the aforementioned awareness of a sexual dimension or potential. This potential can cause sexual tension. This tension is not, however, a necessary outgrowth of the awareness.
3c–If this sexual tension is not driven away when it arises, it has the potential to change the relationship either by destroying the friendship or by leading to a romantic/erotic attraction.
4–In every relationship between people of the same sex in which sexual tension is present, the relationship can be considered a genuine friendship as long as the tension is driven away.

Taking all these objections together, it seems like they are founded on the idea, perhaps implicit in 1b.a, that romantic/erotic attraction, considered objectively or biologically, exist for the sake of getting two people to have sex with each other. Naturally, this notion of “existing for the sake of” would still allow us to say that though the connection between present romantic/erotic feelings and attractions on the one hand and present desires for specific sexual acts on the other is shaky at best, still, if the present attractions are allowed to develop in an authentic way, they will eventually push any two people who experience them for each other to get into a relationship in which sexual activity will play an important role. This analysis of Francisca’s objections may be incorrect, so I hope she’ll correct my if I’m wrong about where she’s coming from.

Even if I’ve inadvertently misrepresented Francisca’s views, though, the discussion would have had to go into the “sakes of” romantic attraction at one point or another. As Aristotle used to say, you don’t really know the what of a thing until you know its what for. Thus, if we are to work through the objections presented so far to Deo Volente’s and my proposal about the lack of connection between attraction for persons and desires for sex (objections that turn on the what of romantic attractions), we will have to consider what these attractions exist for the sake of. I know of only four theories about that.

• The attractions exist for their own sake
• The attractions exist for the sake of getting two people to have sex
• The attractions exist for the sake of drawing two people into a deep/intimate friendship
• The attractions exist for the sake of getting two people to marry each other

Are there others? Which one is correct and why?

 

[chrysostim83]

Hi, I would like to propose that it is possible for two people of the same gender to be brought together by attraction, but the love existing between the can be agape.

I am a gay man. I have no interest in sex with a man. Those two statements are compatible. I probably have a very different understanding of love from you all. To cuddle, to be held, to breath in his rich smell, these are things I consider as part of love. To carve beautiful, intricate things of wood, products of my labor, to give it to him, to see the smile on his face, this too is love. To hold his hand, for us to pray, to ponder the deep wondrous mysteries of the Churh, this too is love.

I guess what I am trying to say is that a romantic love can be agape (to understand what I mean by agape, read Deus Caritas Est).

Thanks for posting this. It brings out the really important point that it’s a mistake to think of this sort of attraction as a fixed point. As married couples and others discover through personal experience, the specifically romantic or erotic attractions don’t last forever, so that what really matters is the relationship that subsists after they’re gone.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Thanks for posting this. It brings out the really important point that it’s a mistake to think of this sort of attraction as a fixed point. As married couples and others discover through personal experience, the specifically romantic or erotic attractions don’t last forever, so that what really matters is the relationship that subsists after they’re gone.

Currently most homosexuals are told to not get close to the same gender. If I didn’t have my bro friends I’d be pretty lonely and sad as would most people. Do you think people are going to stay in the Church if they feel rejected and alone? Proper love nourishes the soul and people feel a hunger for love and joy. When they can not fill it they turn to vices to try.

 

[Edward_H]

Currently most homosexuals are told to not get close to the same gender. If I didn’t have my bro friends I’d be pretty lonely and sad as would most people. Do you think people are going to stay in the Church if they feel rejected and alone? Proper love nourishes the soul and people feel a hunger for love and joy. When they can not fill it they turn to vices to try.

The opposite of lonely is total union with Jesus. We don’t belong to a church to feel a cheap emotional closeness with others. We should not be driven by our feelings. We should be driven by our will to love, God, and through His graces others.

The Church isn’t there to be ‘attractive and inviting’ to others…the Church is there to serve.

Pope Benedict XVI “I would say that a Church that seeks to be particularly attractive is already on the wrong path, because the Church does not work for her own ends, she does not work to increase numbers and thus power. The Church is at the service of another: she serves, not for herself, not to be a strong body, rather she serves to make the proclamation of Jesus Christ accessible…”

 

[francisca]

Hi, I would like to propose that it is possible for two people of the same gender to be brought together by attraction, but the love existing between the can be agape.

I am a gay man. I have no interest in sex with a man. Those two statements are compatible. I probably have a very different understanding of love from you all. To cuddle, to be held, to breath in his rich smell, these are things I consider as part of love. To carve beautiful, intricate things of wood, products of my labor, to give it to him, to see the smile on his face, this too is love. To hold his hand, for us to pray, to ponder the deep wondrous mysteries of the Churh, this too is love.

I guess what I am trying to say is that a romantic love can be agape (to understand what I mean by agape, read Deus Caritas Est).

Hi Dakota Roberts,

I can’t really understand why do you identify yourself as “gay man” when you have no interest to have sex with a man?

To cuddle, to be held, etc without being followed by ANY desire for sex-- those feelings then do not have any sexual inclination whatsoever, thus can be anything but sexual relationship.

A boy can have a desire to be held, cuddled by his parents. His closeness to his parents does not follow any sexual direction. Despite frequent touching, there is no sexual inclination whatsoever, thus such relationship is not sexual.

I guess in your case, if you have no desire to have sex with the man, then your relationship with him is not gay relationship, because you have no sexual inclination toward him. Your desire to be close to him may be because of something else.

God bless you

 

[francisca]

1b-- romantic/ erotic attraction is part of sexual attraction, not always essential in sexual act.

For example: people who buy service from prostitutes can commit sexual-act without any romantic/ erotic attraction.

1b.a.-- despite romantic/ erotic attraction is not essential in sexual act plus those attraction may not always end in sexual act, romantic/ erotic attraction will ALWAYS follow sexual direction which may end in sexual act.
2a–Friendship is a relationship between people that excludes a sexual dimension.
2b–Parties in a friendship do feel an attraction to one another, but the attraction is not of a romantic, erotic, or sexual nature.
3a–In every relationship (including friendships) between a man and a woman, there is an awareness of a possible sexual dimension or potential.
3b–People are naturally aware of their own gender and the gender of the others around them. This is the genesis of the aforementioned awareness of a sexual dimension or potential. This potential can cause sexual tension. This tension is not, however, a necessary outgrowth of the awareness.
3c–If this sexual tension is not driven away when it arises, it has the potential to change the relationship either by destroying the friendship or by leading to a romantic/erotic attraction.
4–In every relationship between people of the same sex in which sexual tension is present, the relationship can be considered a genuine friendship as long as the tension is driven away.

I’ll share my experience with you, so you would know where I am coming from.

When I was young I had several close friends. One of them was the closest. I used to desire to call her at least once a day. Most of the time it was more than once a day. She called me frequently too. There seemed always reasons to talk to each other. There was no day without talking on the phone despite we met very frequently as well.

Then I had a boyfriend. My boy friend and I talked on the phone very frequently too. My desire to call him was similar to my desire to call my best friend. Despite I had never thought about sex with my boyfriend yet, I knew that my relationship with my boyfriend follow a different scenario compare to my relationship with my best friend. The goal of the two relationships were different, despite the feeling of “wanting to talk to each other all the time” were similar.

Thus my desire to call & meet my boyfriend was romance, but my desire to call & meet my best friend was not romance, because the first one followed sexual direction, the latter didn’t