Homosexuality
#31
(06-23-2012, 12:16 PM)Rosarium Wrote: It is normal for heterosexual men to have very close friendships with one or very few other men. Perhaps you are referencing that common social satisfaction. In which case, it is shared by heterosexuals in the same way with only the complication of the homosexual disorder. That perhaps would complicate a normal man to man friendship I suppose if one of the men had that disorder, but still, the social aspect would possibly be the same.

They may be similar, but I don't think they are the same.  Among heterosexuals, I presume the friendship has a sense of disinterestedness to it.  That doesn't really exist with homosexuals, or, it can go beyond just that at least.  There is a non-procreative, exclusive commitment to eachother that doesn't exist among heterosexual male friendships.  Or, at least not to the same extent.  Think Greek "pure" love, just not sexualized in its truest form.

(06-23-2012, 12:16 PM)Rosarium Wrote: Can you make a description which does not rob humanity of its flesh?

I think for better or for worse that biology has explained the base nature of the human body quite well. Why humans kiss and have certain social tendencies are often rooted in the general urge to stay alive on the individual and genetic level. Even normal man to man interactions are rooted in the flesh of the human and can be seen as expressing many base traits.

The body and soul make up the human. They are both part of what it means to be human. The effects of original sin pit the flesh against the spirit, but it is still fundamentally good (just weakened and misguided).

I see your point, but I think you give our biology too much credit.  To ascribe everything we do and feel to our biological impulses is to make us animals with souls, even while acknowledging everything we do and feel has a biological component.  We're more than that, though.  So a kiss may have a purely biological function that originated in mating, and the biological aspect originates in procreation, yet our soul has turned it into something entirely different.  Our soul makes an art out of it, in much the same way we can put random sounds together to make a symphony, or random tools, shapes and colors to make an item with a function become a piece of art.  I think my description doesn't rob humanity of its flesh, but rather yours identifies an aspect of something as principally from the flesh when it really is principally of the soul.
Reply
#32
(06-23-2012, 11:26 PM)Melkite Wrote: They may be similar, but I don't think they are the same.  Among heterosexuals, I presume the friendship has a sense of disinterestedness to it.  That doesn't really exist with homosexuals, or, it can go beyond just that at least.  There is a non-procreative, exclusive commitment to eachother that doesn't exist among heterosexual male friendships.  Or, at least not to the same extent.  Think Greek "pure" love, just not sexualized in its truest form.
That sounds like an attempt to satisfy a sexual desire without being unchaste. Heterosexuals do the same thing, with women. However, it should be carefully monitored lest it become an occasion of sin.

The friendship of Jonathan and David for example would be the friendship I was referencing, where two men become "brothers".


Quote:I see your point, but I think you give our biology too much credit.  To ascribe everything we do and feel to our biological impulses is to make us animals with souls, even while acknowledging everything we do and feel has a biological component.
Look at the ideal holy life, that of a monastic. I think the holiness is exclusion of all the worldly desires is indicative of the nature of those desires.


Quote:We're more than that, though.  So a kiss may have a purely biological function that originated in mating, and the biological aspect originates in procreation, yet our soul has turned it into something entirely different.
But it is still basically a way to test a potential mate (I forget the details, but kissing is more complex than it seemed to me).

Quote:Our soul makes an art out of it, in much the same way we can put random sounds together to make a symphony, or random tools, shapes and colors to make an item with a function become a piece of art.  I think my description doesn't rob humanity of its flesh, but rather yours identifies an aspect of something as principally from the flesh when it really is principally of the soul.

I think it is part of being human, which has a body and a soul. Because of sin, it is difficult to really analyze them as ideals. Perhaps the Resurrection will show us the holiness of the body and soul in the way we could not know now.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)