Christopher Siters

PHIL 14
Dr Champagne
Homosexuality…twice as Godly
“Naples yields to Gaul, Florence to the Germans, for a single opportunity to touch a boy,”

(Beccadelli, Hermaphroditus, 1.14). A bold statement made, that whole cities/nations would bow

for the chance to “touch a boy.” In 1.14, Lepidino asks the author why the man who has tried

pederasty once cannot desist, he asks, “Why, author of trifling verses, is the man who’s fucked

an ass or stuffed a mouth just once unable to unlearn it?” “It” being pederastic love between a

man and boy, which begs the question: what about sex between two men is so different than sex

between a man and a woman?

In the Bible, if one starts with Genesis,

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed

into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul…And the Lord

God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help

meet for him. And out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field

and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call

them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name

thereof. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept:

and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib,

which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto

the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:

she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:7-23),

This establishes a hierarchy of men over women, a natural order, as men were created first,

theoretically “in God’s image,” and women being made with compatible parts for biological

procreation; given unto the man as “an help meet,” and the man named her “woman” since he
Christopher Siters
PHIL 14
Dr Champagne
had prior named all the birds and beasts. This suggests that the male form is, in and of itself,

more akin to the likeness of God than that of the female body, which, while still created by God,

is depicted as akin to birds and beasts, and thusly suggesting an inherent perfection in the male

form that the female does not possess; though not only in form but in thought, that man had

knowledge enough to discern names for everything God created, and God allowed him to do this,

and that was their name. This solidifies man’s word as equivalent to the natural order of the

universe and akin to God’s laws themselves. This gap between men and women is then widened

when one factors in that Eve, the woman, was written as the originator of sin, having then

seduced Adam, and it is Eve’s fault that they were cast from the garden of Eden.

In Leviticus, Moses details commandments given to him by the Lord God, one of which

says, “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination,” (Leviticus

18:22), going on to say that this is defiling oneself. There have been debates as to translations, as

some have cited the original Hebrew text to be referring to the practice of pederasty, between an

adult man and adolescent boy, however, this wording sets up the notion that sex between adult

males is also prohibited, considered “defilement of the body.”

Plato explores this question, of the difference between homosexual and heterosexual

relationships as well as the difference between so called earthly love and heavenly love. The

viewpoint of Greek thought being that there were many kinds of love, but only relations between

men (and certain kinds of men at that) were capable of producing this “heavenly love,” whereas

earthly love was that of physical desire; women, while capable of childbirth, “Pregnancy,

reproduction – this is an immortal thing for a mortal animal to do,” (Symposium, p. 67), but were

only capable of earthly love. This mirrors the ideology that men are superior to women, and it

stands to reason then, that any sort of relation between two men is inherently different than
Christopher Siters
PHIL 14
Dr Champagne
relations between a man and a woman, regardless of the involvement of sex. This begins to give

shape as to why a man would desire homosexuality, attributing certain characteristics exclusive

to genders, obviously in favor of the male gender. If woman was made to submit to man, it

reasons that man would desire an equal.

When speaking of the heavenly love between men, the practice of pederasty is touched

on again. Discussing the stages of becoming a lover, a man will love one body, then many

bodies, but eventually will come to value something innate in every single body and thus every

body being deserving of love. Greek thought put heavy emphasis on the love of youth and

beauty, particularly in the male focus, thus emphasizing the love of beautiful, young boys. One

version of the myth of Love, the god, champions him as the youngest and most beautiful of the

gods. While the Greek pantheon had gods and goddesses alike, with several different versions of

love and a god(dess) for each (Aphrodite, Eros, Cupid, etc.), this myth holds that the idealized

form, the godly, unchanging, perfect version of Love is a beautiful, young man. With that being

said, Plato cautions that earthly love can eclipse heavenly love, and thus urges willpower and

self-control, moderation.

When debating the goal of love, what Love wants, the response Diotima gave was, to

keep the good forever, “Reproduction and birth in beauty,” (Symposium, p. 67), because

reproduction goes on forever. However, reproduction via childbirth has an expiration date

because humans are mortal and die; thus, this earthly love is more limited, not as permanent.

Heavenly love cannot give birth to a physical human, so must then find another outlet; this being

thoughts, ideas, values, etc. While these can manifest in a physical form, they are not human

flesh and thus have a greater longevity, they are less changing than the human body, making

them more akin to the unchanging, the eternal, the immortal.

Christopher Siters
PHIL 14
Dr Champagne
In reading Augustine’s Confessions, he devotes a chapter called “A Friend’s Death,”

where he details the existential crisis he endured when a friend of his died, “To love a man as

more than a man – what craziness! How stupid to be a man and resent the condition of men – as I

did,” (Confessions, p. 69). While it does not say anything explicitly sexual about their

relationship, Augustine says of his friend, “He joined me in my heresy, and I could not be

disjointed from him,” (Confessions, p. 66); given that “heresy” was referring to pagan

ideologies, observances, etc. (which could be sexual in nature and practice), there was clearly a

very intimate relationship between the two for Augustine to be so distraught that nothing could

bring him comfort,

With this grief mt heart ‘was steeped in shadow.’ Look where I would, I

saw only death…Whatever I had done with him became, without him, an extreme

torment…And if I urged it to ‘have hope in the Lord,’ it remained inert – rightly,

since the man it had lost was more real and cherished than that wraith it was asked

to rely on. Weeping was my only comfort. It alone took the place of my friend,

‘my soul’s delight’, (Confessions, p. 67).

I was astonished to see other people living after he no longer lived whom I

had loved as if he could not die, and I wondered how I could still be living when

my alter ego no longer did. Well was it said of a friend that he is the soul’s other

half. My soul and his I considered one soul in two bodies – so my life was

unbearable, to live with only half our soul, but my death was terrifying, perhaps to

see his remaining half of soul die in me, whom I so much loved, (Confessions, p.

68).
Christopher Siters
PHIL 14
Dr Champagne
Augustine’s words clearly reflect a very unique bond beyond that of mere friendship;

while different cultures have different variations and interpretations of the idea of “soul mates,”

this again denotes a very intimate feeling, so much so that he considered himself half dead, yet

fearing to die himself, because he was all that remained of the man he loved. It is evident that

there was at least heavenly, if not both heavenly and earthly, love between these two men, for

only a heavenly love could possibly make someone feel like their soul had been ripped in twain

when one of them should die, the soul being the undying, eternal part of man.

There is something inherently more indulgent in sex between two men; it is outside the

bounds of natural reproduction within the human species, and thus represents an act solely for

pleasure as there is no biological “ends” to the biological “means.” Perhaps this is why

homosexuality is viewed as negative, as it has an inherent hedonism it, not a “need” but a

“want.” So, if this kind of love does not culminate in something physical as with a human child,

it stands to reason Plato’s argument that this is what gives rise to the heavenly love between men.

The first two commandments that Jesus handed down were to love thy God, listen to him, praise

him, worship him, sacrifice for him…and to love thy neighbor as thyself, is it any wonder than

man would have a desire for his fellow men? Being able to combine both this earthly and

heavenly love, to love and worship another man, a man, who was made in God’s image…that

sounds pretty damn holy to me.