Was having some doubts on what to think about homosexuality. Thank you for this video based in sound reason and facts. We really need to push a counterculture to what we are seeing now or we'll see another fall of our society.
This was a great discussion with Matteson, because I've been hearing so much about his book recently. However, while I agree with all of Church teaching regarding natural law, I do have to agree with Fr. Martin in his more pastoral approach to entering into a dialogue with the LGBT community. I really don't understand why so many in the Church are opposed to dialogue, but I suspect (contrary to Matteson's claim) that there is a fair amount of homophobia. And, yes, there is a sizable number of Catholics (and Christians in general) who fear gay men and women-- just check out any Westboro Baptist protest. Pope Francis' words are key: who are we to judge the heart of any person who authentically seeks Christ? Our job is to love them-- real love, not sentimentality-- and accompany them on their walk with Christ. God bless you, Matt! I look forward to the next discussion.
I enjoy your content, but already need to take a break on this one, at the 54 the second mark. I hate to say it, but I'm finding myself less sympathetic towards homosexuals, though I've always felt bad for their struggles. I'm the only son of an only son, I'm far too old to have no family of my own, but fornication was never an option in my heart. We all have our crosses to bear, if we want to belong to Christ, then let's pray that one another's hearts are conformed to His will. Love one another as he loved us. Who washed who's feet, and when?
I found that this conversation meandered, and the purportedly logical argument questionable and inconclusive. Will have to look for a philosophically more rigorous treatment.
What a tired argument - that procreation is the only purpose of sex. The counterargument to that is simple. Other sexual bonds (such as homosexual ones) perform the evolutionary purpose of building and strengthening alliances that enhance survivability. A clear example of this Is the armies of ancient Greece, like the outnumbered"300" Spartans who killed thousands upon thousands of Persians. The sexual bonds in this army intensified the need to perform well in battle in order to impress lovers and also intensified bonds between soldiers so that they protect each other more effectively.
Thanks for your comment! I liked how you brought up an often unaddressed question of further purposes of sex. I assume when you speak about the biological benefit of alliance building you are referring to the pleasure and appeal you receive in the act of sex. If we approach sex from a biological point of view, we must remember the fact that the only reason we feel any pleasure from the sexual act is because of dopamine releases in our brains. Ask any biologist as to the purpose of dopamine and the answer will most likely be that it is meant to incentivise an action. The pleasure of feeling full is to incentivise eating, the pleasure of laughter is to incentivise interaction with others. The pleasure of sexual climax is to incentivise the action of spreading of genetic material. otherwise a biological organism would feel no need to do these things. A study done in rats with their dopamine receptors removed found that they would not engage in sexual acts and even starved to death due to the lack of incentive. From a purely biological perspective, sexual pleasure is most pragmatically and naturally played out in the action of procreation more than any other action. From a theological point of view informed by this reality, we recognise that this dopamine system has been set in order to fulfil an original and specific purpose (that is if you believe in a God). We would find it truly concerning, as well, if we relied on sex to be the greatest provider of social cohesion. We see that the free love culture prevalent in the west has not provided a solution to the growing feelings of isolation and depression in the same context, with some social scientists even stating it may be aggravating the issue. In another study done with mice, rodents who had the most exposure to play and interaction with others made them more capable in the social competition of mating. We could infer that greater social cohesion could be more beneficial to sex than the other way around. Regarding Ancient Greek armies, there were many sources of social cohesion (Hellenistic ideology, resistance to invaders, ambition for expansion and domination, etc.), and there is no sociological data that tells us how beneficial or detrimental these sexual relationships between warriors were on the battle field. What we do know is that modern military units based on these and similar armies (like the U.S. marines) do not have group sex as part of their social cohesion and yet perform with higher levels of success, though materials and funding could be legitimate factors as to the shift in outcome. Thank you again for this post, if you feel I’ve missed the point or would like to pose a counter point, go on and tag me!
But think about what your argument implies. Do you want to be live into what best prolongs the existence of your genetic material, or into the deeper meaning of human purpose? Not to mention, the whole Spartan lover-soldier narrative ignores a number of obvious pitfalls and other considerations we know about warfare. Namely, two men do not make an army, and one man having a special concern for the safety of one other man is just as likely to cause problems in a military unit as to solve them (you may be in a good position to save several of your comrades and a bad position to save your single love, and you'll be unduly weighted toward taking the risk to save the lover), especially in a phalanx style formation. If you try to universalize this love by encouraging the men to take a multitude of lovers, now you've either nullified the effect by cheapening the experience of sex or created a complicated web of envy where there are now rivals you'd prefer weren't around at the end of the battle. As it turns out, when surveying the biographies of decorated war heroes from more modern western conflicts, there is a disproportional representation of eldest brothers who had to take on some level of responsibility for their younger siblings in their formative years, so the kind of love that seems most predisposed to sacrificial performance in war is familial rather than erotic. It's also a misnomer, whether accurately or inaccurately attributed here, that the natural law position is that the *only* purpose for sex is procreative. It does also have a bonding element, which the natural law position would argue is there to strengthen the bond between a procreative couple so they can face the adversity of rearing their young, and bonding with others like you would with your procreative mate is counter productive to that purpose. But in terms of a primary and necessary purpose, procreation is the only thing that sex does exclusively. You can bond with someone in a lot of ways, but there is only one act with any realistic chance of creating a child.
and this in no way justifies it as itself not wrong. just gives a specific context wherein you misinterpret sex as the cause of the social bondage, not the person himself who seeks such or gives such, which isn't restricted to just the act of sex, but apart from it.
Was having some doubts on what to think about homosexuality. Thank you for this video based in sound reason and facts. We really need to push a counterculture to what we are seeing now or we'll see another fall of our society.
This was a great discussion with Matteson, because I've been hearing so much about his book recently. However, while I agree with all of Church teaching regarding natural law, I do have to agree with Fr. Martin in his more pastoral approach to entering into a dialogue with the LGBT community. I really don't understand why so many in the Church are opposed to dialogue, but I suspect (contrary to Matteson's claim) that there is a fair amount of homophobia. And, yes, there is a sizable number of Catholics (and Christians in general) who fear gay men and women-- just check out any Westboro Baptist protest. Pope Francis' words are key: who are we to judge the heart of any person who authentically seeks Christ? Our job is to love them-- real love, not sentimentality-- and accompany them on their walk with Christ. God bless you, Matt! I look forward to the next discussion.
Does anyone know the name of the song?
J P Not sure, but I'm pretty sure it is by Emma Frad, his sister.
J P finished dreaming by interior castle
Brilliant. Just brilliant.
I enjoy your content, but already need to take a break on this one, at the 54 the second mark.
I hate to say it, but I'm finding myself less sympathetic towards homosexuals, though I've always felt bad for their struggles.
I'm the only son of an only son, I'm far too old to have no family of my own, but fornication was never an option in my heart. We all have our crosses to bear, if we want to belong to Christ, then let's pray that one another's hearts are conformed to His will.
Love one another as he loved us. Who washed who's feet, and when?
I was not edified. I was appalled. I’ll listen again and try to give a more nuanced response.
what?
I found that this conversation meandered, and the purportedly logical argument questionable and inconclusive. Will have to look for a philosophically more rigorous treatment.
What a tired argument - that procreation is the only purpose of sex. The counterargument to that is simple. Other sexual bonds (such as homosexual ones) perform the evolutionary purpose of building and strengthening alliances that enhance survivability.
A clear example of this Is the armies of ancient Greece, like the outnumbered"300" Spartans who killed thousands upon thousands of Persians. The sexual bonds in this army intensified the need to perform well in battle in order to impress lovers and also intensified bonds between soldiers so that they protect each other more effectively.
Only a gay person would come up with an argument like that to defend homosexuality. You need to listen to Nick Fuentes. He will set you straight 🤗
@@richardmyers1506 Fuentes is a Nazi you deplorable loser.
Thanks for your comment! I liked how you brought up an often unaddressed question of further purposes of sex. I assume when you speak about the biological benefit of alliance building you are referring to the pleasure and appeal you receive in the act of sex. If we approach sex from a biological point of view, we must remember the fact that the only reason we feel any pleasure from the sexual act is because of dopamine releases in our brains. Ask any biologist as to the purpose of dopamine and the answer will most likely be that it is meant to incentivise an action. The pleasure of feeling full is to incentivise eating, the pleasure of laughter is to incentivise interaction with others. The pleasure of sexual climax is to incentivise the action of spreading of genetic material. otherwise a biological organism would feel no need to do these things. A study done in rats with their dopamine receptors removed found that they would not engage in sexual acts and even starved to death due to the lack of incentive. From a purely biological perspective, sexual pleasure is most pragmatically and naturally played out in the action of procreation more than any other action. From a theological point of view informed by this reality, we recognise that this dopamine system has been set in order to fulfil an original and specific purpose (that is if you believe in a God). We would find it truly concerning, as well, if we relied on sex to be the greatest provider of social cohesion. We see that the free love culture prevalent in the west has not provided a solution to the growing feelings of isolation and depression in the same context, with some social scientists even stating it may be aggravating the issue. In another study done with mice, rodents who had the most exposure to play and interaction with others made them more capable in the social competition of mating. We could infer that greater social cohesion could be more beneficial to sex than the other way around. Regarding Ancient Greek armies, there were many sources of social cohesion (Hellenistic ideology, resistance to invaders, ambition for expansion and domination, etc.), and there is no sociological data that tells us how beneficial or detrimental these sexual relationships between warriors were on the battle field. What we do know is that modern military units based on these and similar armies (like the U.S. marines) do not have group sex as part of their social cohesion and yet perform with higher levels of success, though materials and funding could be legitimate factors as to the shift in outcome. Thank you again for this post, if you feel I’ve missed the point or would like to pose a counter point, go on and tag me!
But think about what your argument implies. Do you want to be live into what best prolongs the existence of your genetic material, or into the deeper meaning of human purpose? Not to mention, the whole Spartan lover-soldier narrative ignores a number of obvious pitfalls and other considerations we know about warfare. Namely, two men do not make an army, and one man having a special concern for the safety of one other man is just as likely to cause problems in a military unit as to solve them (you may be in a good position to save several of your comrades and a bad position to save your single love, and you'll be unduly weighted toward taking the risk to save the lover), especially in a phalanx style formation. If you try to universalize this love by encouraging the men to take a multitude of lovers, now you've either nullified the effect by cheapening the experience of sex or created a complicated web of envy where there are now rivals you'd prefer weren't around at the end of the battle. As it turns out, when surveying the biographies of decorated war heroes from more modern western conflicts, there is a disproportional representation of eldest brothers who had to take on some level of responsibility for their younger siblings in their formative years, so the kind of love that seems most predisposed to sacrificial performance in war is familial rather than erotic.
It's also a misnomer, whether accurately or inaccurately attributed here, that the natural law position is that the *only* purpose for sex is procreative. It does also have a bonding element, which the natural law position would argue is there to strengthen the bond between a procreative couple so they can face the adversity of rearing their young, and bonding with others like you would with your procreative mate is counter productive to that purpose. But in terms of a primary and necessary purpose, procreation is the only thing that sex does exclusively. You can bond with someone in a lot of ways, but there is only one act with any realistic chance of creating a child.
and this in no way justifies it as itself not wrong. just gives a specific context wherein you misinterpret sex as the cause of the social bondage, not the person himself who seeks such or gives such, which isn't restricted to just the act of sex, but apart from it.