THE SYNOD ON THE FAMILY AND THE GAY MOUSE

This article is dedicated to the examination of the discussion and of the Final Report of the recently concluded Extraordinary Synod on the family, regarding the theme of the relationship between church and homosexuals. I published it in Italian on the Gay Project sites on October 19, 2014.

I must dutifully acknowledge Pope Francis that he has allowed all those involved to follow the work of the Synod, allowing the publication of the documents prepared during the Synod itself, as well as the voting results on the final deliberations. It is a criterion of transparency that on such delicate issues is a must, but it should not be forgotten that the publicity of the documents is also aimed at avoiding gossip both inside and outside the Vatican.

I invite the reader to arm himself with good will to follow the path of the Synod with me from the beginning.

After a considerable work of consultation and coordination of the indications emerging from the individual local churches, in view of the Synod, the Instrumentum laboris “The pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization” was published by the Vatican, which in Part II, Chapter III, letter B, concerning unions between persons of the same sex, is expressed as follows:
_______

b) Concerning Unions of Persons of the Same Sex

Civil Recognition

110. On unions of persons of the same sex, the responses of the bishops’ conferences refer to Church teaching. “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. […] Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’” (CDF, Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, 4). The responses indicate that the recognition in civil law of unions between persons of the same sex largely depends on the socio-cultural, religious and political context. In this regard, the episcopal conferences describe three instances: the first exists when repressive and punitive measures are taken in reaction to the phenomenon of homosexuality in all its aspects, especially when the public manifestation of homosexuality is prohibited by civil law. Some responses indicate that, in this context, the Church provides different forms of spiritual care for single, homosexual people who seek the Church’s assistance.

111. A second context is one where the phenomenon of homosexuality is fluid. Homosexual behavior is not punished, but simply tolerated until it becomes visible or public. In this context, legislation on civil unions between persons of the same sex does not usually exist. In political circles, especially in the West, however, the increasing tendency is to adopt laws providing for registered partnerships or so-called “marriage” between persons of the same sex. People argue non-discrimination to give support to this idea, an approach which is perceived by believers and a good part of the public, in central and eastern Europe, as an imposition by a political and foreign culture.

112. The responses describe a third context, one where States have introduced legislation recognizing civil unions or so-called “marriages” between homosexual persons. In some countries, the situation reflects a real redefining of marriage, where the couple is viewed only in legal terms, with such references as “equal rights” and “non-discrimination” without any thought to a constructive dialogue in the matter based on the deeper anthropological issues involved and the centrality of the integral well-being of the human person, especially the integral well-being of the children in these unions. When legal equality is given to heterosexual and homosexual marriage, the State often allows the adoption of children (biological children of either partner or children born through artificial fertilization). Such is the case, particularly in English-speaking countries and central Europe.

An evaluation of the particular Churches

113. Every bishops’ conference voiced opposition to “redefining” marriage between a man and a woman through the introduction of legislation permitting a union between two people of the same sex. The episcopal conferences amply demonstrate that they are trying to find a balance between the Church’s teaching on the family and a respectful, non-judgmental attitude towards people living in such unions. On the whole, the extreme reactions to these unions, whether compromising or uncompromising, do not seem to have facilitated the development of an effective pastoral programme which is consistent with the Magisterium and compassionate towards the persons concerned.

114. A factor which clearly has an impact on the Church’s pastoral care and one which complicates the search for a balanced attitude in this situation is the promotion of a gender ideology. In some places, this ideology tends to exert its influence even at the elementary level, spreading a mentality which, intending to eliminate homophobia, proposes, in fact, to undermine sexual identity.

115. Episcopal conferences supply a variety of information on unions between persons of the same sex. In countries where legislation exists on civil unions, many of the faithful express themselves in favour of a respectful and non-judgmental attitude towards these people and a ministry which seeks to accept them. This does not mean, however, that the faithful give equal status to heterosexual marriage and civil unions between persons of the same sex. Some responses and observations voice a concern that the Church’s acceptance of people in such unions could be construed as recognition of their union.
Some Pastoral Guidelines

116. When considering the possibility of a ministry to these people, a distinction must be made between those who have made a personal, and often painful, choice and live that choice discreetly so as not to give scandal to others, and those whose behaviour promotes and actively — often aggressively — calls attention to it. Many conferences emphasize that, due to the fact that these unions are a relatively recent phenomenon, no pastoral programs exist in their regard. Others admit a certain unease at the challenge of accepting these people with a merciful spirit and, at the same time, holding to the moral teaching of the Church, all the while attempting to provide appropriate pastoral care which takes every aspect of the person into consideration. Some responses recommend not using phrases such as “gay,” “lesbian” or “homosexual” to define a person’s identity.

117. Many responses and observations call for theological study in dialogue with the human sciences to develop a multi-faceted look at the phenomenon of homosexuality. Others recommend collaborating with specific entities, e.g., the Pontifical Academy of the Social Sciences and the Pontifical Academy for Life, in thoroughly examining the anthropological and theological aspects of human sexuality and the sexual difference between man and woman in order to address the issue of gender ideology.

118. The great challenge will be to develop a ministry which can maintain the proper balance between accepting persons in a spirit of compassion and gradually guiding them to authentic human and Christian maturity. In this regard, some conferences refer to certain organizations as successful models for such a ministry.

119. Sex education in families and educational institutions is an increasingly urgent challenge, especially in countries where the State tends to propose in schools a one-sided view and a gender ideology. Formation programmes ought to be established in schools or parish communities which offer young people an adequate idea of Christian and emotional maturity to allow them to face even the phenomenon of homosexuality. At the same time, the observations show that there is still no consensus in the Church on the specific way of receiving persons in these unions. The first step would be a slow process of gathering information and distinguishing criteria of discernment for not only ministers and pastoral workers but also groups and ecclesial movements.

The transmission of the Faith to children in same sex unions

120. The responses are clearly opposed to legislation which would allow the adoption of children by persons in a same-sex union, because they see a risk to the integral good of the child, who has the right to have a mother and father, as pointed out recently by Pope Francis (cf. Address to Members of the International Catholic Child Bureau (BICE), 11 April 2014). However, when people living in such unions request a child’s baptism, almost all the responses emphasize that the child must be received with the same care, tenderness and concern which is given to other children. Many responses indicate that it would be helpful to receive more concrete pastoral directives in these situations. Clearly, the Church has the duty to ascertain the actual elements involved in transmitting the faith to the child. Should a reasonable doubt exist in the capability of persons in a same sex union to instruct the child in the Christian faith, proper support is to be secured in the same manner as for any other couple seeking the baptism of their children. In this regard, other people in their family and social surroundings could also provide assistance. In these cases, the pastor is carefully to oversee the preparation for the possible baptism of the child, with particular attention given to the choice of the godfather and godmother.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/…ia_en.html
______

I don’t intend to comment on this text by entering into the merits, I limit myself just to underline the breadth of expectations that could arise from it in so many faithful and not.

After the beginning of the Synod, the Relator General, Card. Péter Erdő, Archbishop of Esztergom-Budapest, presents his “Relatio post disceptationem” on October 13, 2014, a document that is a kind of draft of the final document, which expresses itself in this way regarding homosexuality:

Welcome homosexual people

50. Homosexual persons have talents and qualities to offer to the Christian community: can we welcome these people, guaranteeing them an area of fraternity in our communities? Often they wish to meet a Church that is a welcoming home for them. Can our communities be able to accept it and evaluate their sexual orientation without compromising the Catholic doctrine on family and marriage?

51. The homosexual question challenges us in a serious reflection on how to develop realistic paths of emotional growth and human and evangelical maturity by integrating the sexual dimension: it therefore presents itself as an important educational challenge. The Church also affirms that unions between persons of the same sex cannot be equated with marriage between men and women. It is not even acceptable that pressures are exerted on the attitude of pastors or that international organizations can condition financial aid to the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

52. Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it is noted that there are cases in which mutual support until the sacrifice is a precious support for the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church has special attention towards children living with same-sex couples, reiterating that the needs and rights of children should always be placed first.
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastam…03037.html (My translation)
______

As we can see, the “Relatio post disceptationem” very strongly restricts the scope of the “Instrumentum laboris”, but also contains some elements that do not speak of openness but of respect at least towards homosexual persons. From the point of view of a lay man who sees things from the outside, however, with the “Relatio post disceptationem”, the mountain of expectations has given birth to a skimpy little mouse. The press, however, welcomes the Relatio as a great opening of the church towards homosexuals. However skimpy, the gay mouse is around the Vatican but the austere Synod fathers are not intimidated by that mouse and armed with their age-old wisdom, are ready to catch it before it escapes officially from the Synod hall. Here the minor circles sharpen their weapons:

This is the expression of the French-language circle “A”, of which the Eminent Card. Robert SARAH is moderator and S.E. Mons. François-Xavier DUMORTIER, S.J. is speaker:

“As for the reception of homosexual persons, it seems clear to us that the Church, following the image of Christ the Good Shepherd (John 10, 11-18) has always wanted to welcome people who knock on his door, a door open to all, people that must be received with respect, compassion and recognizing the dignity of each one. To accompany a person pastorally doesn’t mean to validate either a form of sexuality or a form of life.”[1]

The French-language Circle B, whose moderator is Cardinal Em. Card. Christoph SCHÖNBORN, O.P. and Speaker S.E. Mons. André LÉONARD, expresses itself as follows:

“5. We reiterated our respect and our welcoming towards homosexual people and we denounced the unjust and often violent discrimination that they suffered and still suffer, sometimes, even in the Church, alas! But this doesn’t mean that the Church must legitimize homosexual practices, much less recognize, as some states do, a so-called homosexual “marriage”. On the contrary, we denounce all the maneuvers of some international organizations to impose, through financial blackmail, to the poor countries some laws that establish the so-called homosexual “marriage”. [2]

The English Language Circle B having as a Moderator the Card. Wilfrid Fox NAPIER, O.F.M. and as a Speaker S.E. Mons. Diarmuid MARTIN so expresses itself:

“On the theme of the pastoral care of people with homosexual tendencies, the group observed that the Church must continue to promote the revealed nature of marriage as always between a man and a woman united throughout life in a life-giving and faithful communion.
The group encouraged pastors and parishes to take care of people with the same sex attraction, providing for them in the family of the Church, always protecting their dignity as children of God, created in his image. Within the Church, they should find a home where they can listen, with everyone else, to the call of Jesus to follow him in fidelity to the truth, to receive His grace to do so, and His mercy when they are wrong.”[3]

The Report of the Italian Language Circle “A”, having as its moderator the Cardinal Fernando FILONI and as Speaker S.E Mons. Edoardo MENICHELLI, expressed itself as follows:

“With regard to the pastoral care of homosexual persons, we have directed ourselves towards the proposal of a single statement in which it was emphasized both a commitment to proximity oriented to evangelization and the style of the Church, as an open house, enhancing the gifts, the good will and the sincere path of each one. It has been reaffirmed that unions between persons of the same sex cannot be equated with marriage between men and women, expressing the concern to safeguard the rights of children who must grow harmoniously with the tenderness of their father and mother.”

The Report of the Italian Language Circle C having for Moderator S.E. Mons. Angelo MASSAFRA, O.F.M. and for Speaker, Fr. Manuel Jesús ARROBA CONDE, C.M.F., expresses itself as follows:

“In this regard, the fathers pointed out some more specific aspects to enrich the proposals formulated in the text: an express mention on family movements; a special number [statement] on the adoptions; an invitation to study new presences in the educational field; a return to the texts of the instrumentum laboris about homosexual unions; an appeal to institutions to promote policies in favor of the family.”

The Report of the Spanish Language Circle A with the Moderator Card. Francisco ROBLES ORTEGA and the Speaker S.E. Mons. Luis Augusto CASTRO QUIROGA, I.M.C. expresses itself as follows:

“As for n. 50, it has been observed that we should not talk about homosexuals almost as if homosexuality were a part of their ontological being, but of people with homosexual tendencies. It was requested to replace the text of this number with the following:. “Sexuality that makes us exist as a human being as a male and a female is an essential value in anthropology and Christian theology. It makes us exist reciprocally not in indistinction but in complementarity … even people with homosexual tendencies need guidance and support to help them grow in faith and to know God’s plan for them.”[4]

The report of the Spanish Language Club “B” having as a Moderator Card. Lluís MARTÍNEZ SISTACH and as Speker S.E. Msgr. Rodolfo VALENZUELA NÚÑEZ so expresses its opinion on the Relatio post dissertationem:

“We believe that there is a lack of emphasis on important issues such as abortion, the attacks against life, the large phenomenon of adoption, the decisions taken by spouses in conscience, as well as greater clarity on the issue of homosexuality. “[5]
_____

Evidently, the gay mouse has sown panic among the Synodal Fathers, but they have finally managed to capture it.

The following is the paragraph of the “Relatio Synodi”, that is, of the final document of the extraordinary synod on the family, concerning the relationship between the church and the homosexuals:

Pastoral Attention towards Persons with Homosexual Tendencies

55. Some families have members who have a homosexual tendency. In this regard, the synod fathers asked themselves what pastoral attention might be appropriate for them in accordance with Church teaching: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” Nevertheless, men and women with a homosexual tendency ought to be received with respect and sensitivity. “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4).

56. Exerting pressure in this regard on the Pastors of the Church is totally unacceptable: it is equally unacceptable for international organizations to link their financial assistance to poorer countries with the introduction of laws that establish “marriage” between persons of the same sex.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/…ia_en.html

It should be emphasized that point 55 was approved without the qualified majority of 2/3 but with a simple majority, however very strong and very close to 2/3, of 118 in favor and 62 against.

As is evident, the mouse was happily devoured before being able to leave the Synod hall. The initial “instrumentum laboris” was reduced to the material repetition of the contents of the “Considerations about the projects of legal recognition of unions between homosexual persons” signed by Josepf Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in June 2003.

Frankly I don’t understand the homosexual Catholics who hope to find a respectful reception by the church. Other Christian churches have taken on decidedly more evangelical positions.

Just today, 18 October 2014, the Mayor of Rome, Ignazio Marino, ordered to register 16 homosexual marriages celebrated abroad in the official marriage register of Rome.

Thus L’Avvenire (the newspaper of the Italian Episcopal Conference) of October 18 begins its comment on the fact: “”An ideological choice, which certifies an unprecedented institutional affront” based on a “mystification supported at the media and political level”: so the editorial of Angelo Zema, on Roma Sette, the magazine of the diocese of Rome on newsstands on Sunday with Avvenire, defines the transcription of marriages celebrated abroad by some homosexual couples operated by the mayor of “Roma Capitale”, Ignazio Marino, in the municipal registers. The editorial speaks of “illegitimate” choices in a “context with a Hollywood tone” and “with a clear demagogic flavor”.

When the Synod was over and the gay little mouse was no more wandering around the Vatican, the CEI (Italian Episcopal Conference) immediately warned another reason for alarm: there are many gay mice, too many gay mice, just outside the Vatican walls! Fortunately, the world goes his way, even if the church goes somewhere else.
__________

[1] “Concernant l’accueil des personnes homosexuelles, the nous semble clair que l’Eglise, à l’image du Christ Bon Pasteur (Jn 10,11-18), a toujours voulu accueillir les personnes here frappent à sa porte, porte ouverte à tous, here sont à accueillir avec respect, compassion et dans la reconnaissance de la dignité de chacun. Accompagner pastoralement une personne ne signifie valider ni une forma de sexualité ni une forme de vie.”

[2] “5. Nous avons redit notre respect et notre accueil aux personnes homosexuelles et avons dénoncé les discriminations injustes et parfois violentes qu’elles ont subies et subissent encore parfois, y compris dans l’Église, hélas! Mais cela ne signifie pas que l’Église doive légitimer les pratiques homosexuelles et encore moins reconnaître, in the font certains Ettats, a soi-disant «mariage» homosexuel. Au contraire, nous dénonçons toutes les manœuvres de certaines international organizations visant à imposer, par voie de chantage financier, aux pays pauvres des législations instituant un soi-disant “mariage” homosexuel.”

[3] “On the subject of the pastoral care of the family, the group noted that the Church must continue to promote the revealed nature of marriage as always between one man and one woman united in lifelong, life-giving, and faithful communion.
The group encouraged pastoral care for children with same sex attraction, providing protection in the family of the Church. They say they are in the same place, they can be found in the church, they hear the call of Jesus to follow Him in fidelity to the truth. His mercy when they fail.”

[4] “Pasando at n.50, if you have observado que no if debe hablar de personas homosexuales cases como el homosexualismo fuese part of su ser ontológico, sino de personas tendencias homosexuales. If solicitó sustituir el texto de este número por el siguiente: “the sexualidad que nos hace existir como humanidad en masculino y the femenino, es a valor irrenunciable en la antropología y en the theología cristiana. Nos hace ser los unos para with los otros no en la indistinción until en la complementariedad … Las personas with tendencias homosexuales tambien necesitan de acogida y acompañamiento que les ayude a crecer en la fe y a conocer el plan de Dios para ellos.”

[5] “Consideramos que faltaron en el mismo énfasis sobre temas importantes como el aborto, los atentados contra la vida, el amplio fenómeno de la adopción, las decision-making en conciencia de los exposos, así como a mayor claridad sobre el theme de la homosexualidad .”

___________________
If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-the-synod-on-the-family-and-the-gay-mouse
Advertisements

A GAY COUPLE IN A TERRIBLE ORDEAL

Hi Project,
I was really pleased to be able to talk with you last night, I absolutely needed it and I enthusiastically welcome the idea of summarizing yesterday’s speech into an email that you can then enter in the forum.

I am 31 years old, in my life I have always been convinced of having a thousand problems, from the idea that I would never find a guy who loved me at the idea of not being physically and psychologically up to a serious partner and many other things. For those things I felt bad, I felt like a nothingness and I thought I had experienced the worst, the most problematic situations of life, then I met a guy and slowly, gradually, we began to love each other. I don’t know what brought us to get together but it happened.

For a long time we couldn’t live together because we didn’t have the chance, in theory we were only two good friends, but in reality we were a couple. We didn’t see each other every day, and it happened that maybe in a week we saw each other only once, but when we were together we felt really well, we learned to love each other, to understand each other, to trust each other.

I thought I had found my serenity and surely he too thought it, but suddenly he started to accuse some disorders, he went to the doctor who sent him to the specialist and he did some very thorough instrumental examinations and it became clear that my boyfriend had a very serious health problem. I don’t go into details, but it was really a bolt from the blue.

At the moment he has quite bearable disturbances, but it will not always be that way and we have been told it, now he has begun his path of illness, which, apart from the gravity of the thing in itself, will create great problems even with work, because he is employee of a large private company and when he will have to go to the hospital for therapy he will be absent from work and so he will risk dismissal. Fortunately for me I have a good job and if it were to serve I could give him a helping hand.

At the moment he has not said anything about the illness to his parents, who are elderly, have a lot of health problems and live with him, he doesn’t want to alarm them, but sooner or later they will realize that something is wrong.

My parents know my boyfriend, who has been to my house many times with them, but they thought he was just a friend of mine. Some time ago, my father, who is 70 years old, looked at me in the eye and said: “I see you’re not quiet, what’s wrong?” And I told him everything, that I was gay and that my boyfriend was sick and he hugged me and told me: “On me and your mother, you can always count and for anything.” I felt a little comforted but I’d have preferred that it was my boyfriend to feel comforted, but he can’t even talk with his parents.

My father asked me about the hospital where my boyfriend goes, and about doctors who take care about him and he said they are serious people, he knows those environments because he too has had oncological problems, now under control.

I modified my working hours to be close to my boyfriend as much as possible, I accompany him to work and I go to take him back, I always accompany him to the hospital, the doctor who takes care about him has been told that we are a couple and didn’t make a grimace. My father at one point called Steven on the phone and Steven came to my house for lunch, it’s something quite usual for us, but this time my father told Steven something that he didn’t expect: “Louis told me everything and we (i.e. he and my mother) thought that you and Louis can feel more at ease enjoying your privacy in this apartment, I and my wife can go to a little house we have in the village nearby, which is only 15 kilometers from here, but your parents would remain alone and maybe they would take it badly, I don’t know … What do you think about?” Steven was puzzled and didn’t know what to say and I too, actually. He should have left his parents’ house and it seemed unrealistic. My father, given the perplexities, didn’t insist and said only: “The proposal is always valid, if you decide to put it into practice, it is done in two days at most”.

When I took Steven back to his house and we parted, he thought that if he had been with me in the same house he would have been calmer, even for the illness, because his parents knew nothing and in case of need they wouldn’t have known what to do. He told me: “I have to try and get my parents to accept it, but they also have my sister and they wouldn’t be alone anyway … let’s see what happens.” After not even a week, my parents went to live in the village and Steven moved to my home. He was happy to be with me, it was also a way to realize a dream, but at the base of everything there was a terrible melancholy. I saw Steven smiling and seemingly quiet but I was worried about the passage of time, everything seemed to me ephemeral and frighteningly unstable.

At the moment the situation is this, Steven goes to the hospital for checks every two months, the doctors don’t talk too much, they decide what to do step by step, I bring inside me a terrible anguish and I think about what Steven is experiencing, we speak about everything, but not about the disease, which means that he is trying to remove it and not to be too much conditioned by it.

I feel embarrassed especially for sex, I swear, Project, I never know how to behave, before we had never had problems, it all came spontaneously, now to launch the idea seems inappropriate, but in the end this is also a stupid problem. He occasionally takes the initiative, we rarely get to sex, in most cases we just smile and move on. It’s different for cuddles, now there’s a lot more tenderness than before, a little to compensate for the decrease in sexuality and mainly, I think, because now we have our intimacy, we have our own home and we can nestle one against the other to see the television or just to feel that we are there and that we love each other.

Project, I would never have thought of having to face a situation like this, which puts me to the test in a violently emotional way. I am terrified of the future, doctors don’t encourage but don’t even discourage, talk about the phase of therapy towards which you are going but never talk about long-term prospects. I don’t ask questions when we go to the hospital together. Steven asks some questions and I try to memorize the doctor’s answers and to put together the pieces of the puzzle to understand something more. We have decided not to read Wikipedia and let the doctors do their work.

Sometimes in the morning I wake up next to Steven and I start to pray for Steven, and I have never been religious, but now I find comfort in the ideas of religion. Of this I cannot talk with Stephen, not so much because he is radically rationalist and unbeliever, but because for him it would be like a further confirmation that I consider his health problem insurmountable. He too, in my opinion, doesn’t see any favorable prospects at all, but he never talks about it. Sometimes, when we hug, I wonder what he is thinking but obviously he doesn’t say anything. Those moments of silence are very intense, our way of shaking hands is already very eloquent. This too is being gay and I had never imagined it.

Now I realize how absurd the problems I had a few years ago were, now I took a bath of reality that put me in touch with human nature in its fragility. I’m learning very hard lessons, I only know that I love Steven, and I will never leave him alone, I don’t want to think of a future without Steven, this idea is terrible for me and makes me cry, because I see Steven who calmly shakes my hand, I hear his voice a little hesitant and I also see him smile, it is he who tries not to make me think and to give me courage.

Now we are at this point, Project, and no one knows what is to come. I feel profoundly melancholic, I feel like a feather carried by the wind. My parents try to be present to calm the atmosphere a little, they treat Steven as if he were a son of theirs, this consoles a little, but the underlying terrible melancholy remains. I love Steven also because he has a dignity even in this situation, and doesn’t close himself in himself, on the contrary he accepts to share his anxieties with me, without too many words but with a lot of love. I stop here, Project, because I can’t go on.
Louis

____________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-a-gay-couple-in-a-terrible-ordeal

A MARRIED GAY GUY WHO HAS NOT REPENTED

Greetings to all, “I have not just registered in the forum”, I was undecided whether to introduce myself, partly because I don’t know if my story will be useful for the discussion. My not being repentant for the choices made could mislead some who are looking for their identity.

I immediately say that I have a certain age, I am married and with children, but since adolescence I have always had fantasies and even homosexual practices. But I made a choice of life that I don’t want to question now. The fact that I have read many of the interventions of this forum, which I judge serious and above all commendable in protecting the privacy of users, also highlights that I still have an interest in these issues and my for fear of not being completely in peace with myself.

I think I have an ideal family life, a wife who loves me and children I’m proud of. All this, however, has been achieved without my having ever been able to distract myself from my drives which are clearly in the homosexual sense. Even after the wedding I had some falls, I considered them “betrayals”, yes serious, but in my opinion not very different from those of straight people. I don’t know whether to consider myself a true homosexual, but the more I analyze my life and the more I believe to be gay. But I also think with different attitudes from experiences of others.

I never thought of being able to share the couple life with a man and I was mostly driven by sexual attraction, I don’t know if I “fell in love” with another guy, perhaps at a young age, perhaps with attentions directed towards those who could not create a relationship with me, inside me however the thing has always been confused. What is certain is that I have always refused to recognize him and have tried to live a seemingly normal hetero life. In short, my homosexuality is the one that is called dystonic homosexuality.

You have to consider that on me the religious element has had a decisive influence. I have understood from various interventions that this is normally considered negative. But faith for me is an irrepressible fact, full of doubts and contradictions, but I cannot and don’t want to eliminate it from my life. I never said anything to my wife. I realize that complete sincerity in a relationship is essential but I have never succeeded, perhaps at the beginning I made some attempts, but exactly as I read in some posts of the forum, often this by the partner of the other sex is not understood or the partner doesn’t even want to consider it.

Now, after a long time, for the great affection that I have towards my wife, never, never I could have let her be aware of a situation that she surely couldn’t have understood. I try to accept myself this way, maybe I have not been completely honest, but sometimes other priorities are included in the scale of priorities. The textbook on homosexuality has greatly struck me positively, especially when the topic of married gays is dealt with. I think I have found a balance as indicated in the first option, that is with fantasies and, sometimes, with porn sites that I’m a bit ashamed of but nevertheless I consider the lesser evil.

I feel fragile and willing to give in to temptation but I resign myself to what I’m. I understand that maybe my experience cannot be taken as an example, I may have managed to realize myself in a way that can be judged not appropriate to the full acceptance of how we are but, as I have repeatedly heard, every case is separate and I frankly I cannot repent of my family choice. Perhaps today with the most widespread and above all clearer and more scientific means of information on this topic, I would have done differently, but it went like this and no verification of other hypotheses is anymore possible. Hello everyone with my most sincere sympathy.

___________________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-a-married-gay-guy-who-has-not-repented

CRITICAL POINTS OF THE PATH OF A GAY GUY TOWARDS HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE

I noticed that the statistical sites show the constant presence of readers who get to Gay Project, through the Google search engine, using keys like: ”married gays”. The problem exists and it is not statistically irrelevant as usually believed.

I try to summarize here some of the fundamental elements that emerged from the Gay Project experience with regard to married gays. Among the absolutely fundamental elements in determining the path that leads gay guys to marriage, we must remember:

1) The idea that being gay is a “choice” that is somehow modifiable or a “vice” that can be prevented or corrected.

2) The idea that sexuality is a marginal reality that, for a heterosexual, must be exclusively instrumental to the creation of a family and procreation and, for a gay guy, must in any case be sacrificed in the name of the family and children.

3) The idea that a gay guy can be fully realized, that is can be realzed at the family level, because the true realization is only that, exclusively through the denial of his sexuality and that this denial will be, after all, painless because compensated by the family affection. In essence, the instinctive affectivity, connected with sexuality, is radically denied in this way. Cardinal Lajolo, in an interview in March 2014, declared, as if it were obvious, that “Gay marriages cannot fail to disappoint those who make them”, in reality, if we consider the constant decrease in the propensity to marriage, the exponential increase in “femicides” and the constantly increasing percentages of divorces and separations (in Italy 50% of marriages end up in divorce or separation), what emerges is the substantial separation of society from the Catholic model of marriage and family.

4) Proposing to a young heterosexual the traditional family as a condition of happiness means to deceive him, on the contrary, it would be useful to induce him to reflect on the problems and uncertainties that marriage can bring and actually brings with itself, given that 50% of marriages end up in court. Proposing heterosexual marriage as the only possible option for a homosexual means even laying the foundation not only for the failure of an entirely artificial family union, which will inevitably weigh on children, but also means condemning a gay to a life entirely against nature, i.e. against his nature, and condemning a woman, who would have every right to have a husband really in love with her, to live in a state of great uncertainty and total dissatisfaction not only sexual but, in almost all cases, even emotional.

5) The idea that the “sacrifice” is a value in itself. Too often guys tend to see the renunciation of their spontaneous sexuality as a merit in the name of the ideal of the family. In reality, when a gay gets married he is convinced that accepting the sacrifice of his sexuality is something high and noble, but in no case self-repression leads, in the long run, to positive outcomes, and the “sacrifice” accepted by the gay, it actually ends up being a violent conditioning imposed on the life of a wife who often isn’t event aware.

6) The idea that conformism to traditional values is always positive, even for those who with certain traditional institutions, such as marriage, have nothing at all to do. Families rarely appreciate freedom and often tend to believe that what is socially accepted is, for this only reason, the best path to follow for everyone and in every situation.

7) The idea that obedience is always a virtue and the free of the single person must be systematically sacrificed in the name of socially accepted general rules.

____________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-critical-points-of-the-path-of-a-gay-guy-towards-heterosexual-marriage

HOMOSEXUALITY AS A GUILT-PATHOLOGY AND MARRIAGE AS A REMEDY

This post is dedicated to married gays, so I will leave aside all the considerations related to sexual orientation of guys who have a straight sex life at the couple level and having a sex life typically gay at the level of masturbation, because these considerations have an important sense only before you get married.

I will start here from the situation of married gays, as I see it through the chats with people living in this condition. In my dialogues with married gay guys of all ages, the idea that when we are young, we are very often led to underestimate homosexuality and to consider it a choice and, even worse, a reversible choice, is always present. Too many times one hears people telling that one chooses to be gay and this totally false statement creeps into the brains of the guys who, forgive me the desecrating but instructive example, consider homosexuality not as their nature, i.e. as a personal fundamental characteristic but as a kind of drug that is a bad thing in itself but that can be taken in the end, in small doses, because it is taken for granted that one can come out of it when and how one wants.

Homosexuality has nothing negative and it is not a habit that leads to addiction, such as the use of drugs but it is a reality about which it makes no sense to say: “I go out of it when I want” because being gay is not a choice. The idea coming from a religious matrix of the homosexuality as a vice that if rooted leads to an addiction, that is to a vice no longer eradicable, is still widespread and continues to produce incalculable damages, inducing gays to marriage in the belief that, in the end, with an act of will, they can also choose to be straight.

The married gays know very well how much this wrong vision of things is deleterious. Very often, in socially backward reality in which homophobia dominates, children learn from an early age to see homosexuality as a disvalue, all traditional education presupposes the heterosexuality of guys and, where there are gay guys, who are eight percent of the guys and therefore are practically everywhere, causes them to repress any gay drive through feelings of guilt.

The Catholic Church still officially has attitudes that are substantially homophobic and, in substance even if not in words, incites hatred against homosexuals. With Pope Francis the tone, at the top, has changed, but eradicating homophobia from the Church is a something that seems to be destined for failure, admitted and not granted that someone really intends to attempt it.

The attitudes of the family are often backwarded and violently repressive. I invite those who have not seen it to see a very significant French film: “Juste une question d’amour” in which parents who embody two different attitudes have to face the homosexuality of the sons. When the repression of homosexuality is so strong as to induce the guys not only to eliminate external behaviors that may make people think of homosexuality but even to fight against their own homosexual instincts at a very private level by repressing spontaneous masturbation in a gay key, it becomes unfortunately possible and concrete the possibility that a guy can think not only of forcing himself not to be gay but even to be straight.

These are forms of profound violence that completely alter and I would say completely distort the affectivity and sexuality of a gay guy, who is encouraged to create a heterosexual relationships and to cultivate it by “imitating” the attitudes of other guys; in these cases the removal of homosexuality is seen as a moral merit and heterosexual sexuality is accepted as “medicine of homosexuality”.

Behind all this, the idea of sexuality as a vice and therefore as a fault is evident. On closer inspection, it is easy to understand that where very elementary and dogmatic conceptions of nature dominate, the complexity of reality is compressed into schemes derived from pure prejudices. To think that sexuality is aimed only at procreation is an assumption of principle that is systematically contradicted at the social level and in individual behavior.

The expression “against nature” has been and is still used systematically with regard to behaviors and to the same homosexual libido. Instead of knowing what variants of human sexuality are, it is much easier to consider them as deviations “against nature” or as acquired vices, or cultural choices, more or less induced from the outside. To consider homosexuality a vice rather than a variant of human sexuality means to base the whole approach to homosexuality on totally wrong grounds.

When a guy evaluates his homosexuality as a vice against which one must resist to return to true sexuality according to nature, in fact, he takes an attempt of self-repression that results in an attempt to avoid or contain masturbation, to escape from the occasions in which homosexual instincts can be more easily reawakened, to sublimate homosexuality in affectionate friendship, and, at the end, to choose of a way without return like marriage. I report here (with the consent of the author) an email I received.

“I am writing to you with great fear because I don’t know who you are, and the fact that you are gay embarrasses me. I’m 25 years old, I have distinctly felt an interest in guys for a few years, but I don’t feel repulsed by girls, now I have a girlfriend for a few months and all in all I feel quite at ease with her, she’s very sweet and she’s not obsessed with sex like some girls that I had before, we love each other, she is not at the top of my thoughts, I sometimes let myself go to pornography and in particular gay pornography, but with my girlfriend I think that a serious relationship could also be built. I want to say that if I work hard I can do without gay porn and even without masturbation for several days and I think if I had a family I could put all these things aside to dedicate myself to my family. I feel that I’m at a turning point, because if I wanted, I could arrive to the wedding and even in a short time and my girlfriend would be very happy and even our parents, and in the end, it would be good for me, but honestly for me it’s very hard to decide because then I could not go back. I would love to get married and do away with pornography once and for all. etc., but I’m afraid of doing the biggest stupid thing in my life. There is something that makes me reflect and it is the fact that I talk with my girlfriend about everything but I could not talk about my homosexual fantasies because I think that she wouldn’t really understand the meaning of such a thing, she’s fine with me, we pamper each other with a minimum of petting but she would never understand that for me there is something else, she is convinced that homosexuality is a vice that can be overcome with good will and perhaps with the help of a good psychologist. I too, years ago, tended to give for granted all these things but lately I started to think that things are much less easy than people make them look. I asked myself many questions about my future and what I really want. Recently I met a guy at the university and I started to look at him with interest, but not only for reasons of sex, as I did before, but to look at him with emotional interest, he made me feel tenderness, I wanted to stay next to him, there was also sex, but not just sex, and for the first time I began to think that for me a love story could be possible even with a guy and maybe even more with a guy than with a girl. I don’t know anything about the gay reality, which objectively scares me but I’m not at all sure that I want to give up my private and tiny gay world to go to a wedding that honestly scares me a little because in the end it could be a real trap. But now what have I to do? My girlfriend expects the wedding, like our parents and friends, etc. etc .. I think I need someone who forces me to admit things that I now see even by myself, even if then transforming the clarity of ideas that I’m gaining into concrete actions is really difficult.”

____________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-homosexuality-as-a-guilt-pathology-and-marriage-as-a-remedy

LEARNING FROM GAY EXPERIENCES

Hello Project, I am a guy 22 years old and I want to tell you my story, then, if you like, I would like to exchange a few words with you (my contact msn is omissis). As a child I was the classic good child. My father and especially my mother made me do what they wanted using only praise and half-perplexed faces. When I did what they wanted: hugs and kisses and pampering to no end, I think in an excessive way; when instead I was doing something my own way came the reproaches: “but why didn’t you tell your mother?” “you always want to do everything on your own, dad and mom are here for this!” I was a puppet in their hands, and I didn’t realize it.

Maybe at that age it’s normal and something like that happens to everyone but for me that stadium lasted for too many years. The other boys at 11/12 years seek their autonomy, I was only looking for the approval of my parents. The same was for the parish. There was an old priest who was a bit like a guide for the guys, for me it was an oracle, I did anything to hear his “Good boy!” Same thing at school with the teachers (I did the middle School by priests). At school I was good but I didn’t understand practically anything of what I was studying, when I saw that someone thought differently from my teacher I thought that he was a total ignorant or just an idiot.

It went on like this up to 13 years. I didn’t understand anything, I didn’t have even a minimum of autonomy but I was happy so. Until I turned 13, I thought only that sex was a dirty thing that made by the depraved guys who didn’t want to study and who would have been very uncomfortable in life because they didn’t do what their parents said.

Shortly after I turned 13 I discovered masturbation by chance. It was something that I liked, at first I was worried because it was a new thing, but then it was a pleasant thing and I had had no negative consequences as a result of it. The idea that masturbation had something to do with sex didn’t even touch me, the models of sexuality that I had at that time were those a bit in gloomy tones that I received from my parents who never deepened the subject but branded everything related to sex saying: “It’s people who have the brain ruined!” In short, it had also occurred to me to tell my mother that I was masturbating, just because I thought that sex had nothing to do with what I was doing, and fortunately I didn’t. So I never told it the priest in confession or anyone else but not to avoid saying it but because it seemed to me like an obvious and trivial thing.

For all the rest I continued to be the classic good child who obeys parents, goes to church, etc. etc. In the church at that time I spontaneously recited the part of the mystic. I had so well assimilated the priest’s way of doing that I even thought I could became a priest. I was a perfect believer, the parish priest always praised me and I felt proud of myself, it wasn’t a recital, I wasn’t aware of playing a role that didn’t belong to me to which I had only perfectly adapted. In the end, so, everything was fine and I didn’t ask myself any questions.

It went on like this up to 14 years. I started middle School in a state school, shortly after I turned 14, and there I realized I was completely out of this world. I didn’t understand anything about the sexual discourses of my classmates, I just pretended to understand simply not to let my mates make fun of me. Then, slowly, over time, more interpreting the gestures they made than words they said I began to understand something, two things actually: that what I did every day was masturbation and that it was exactly that sexual activity that I had heard condemned by the parish priest, and then I realized for the first time that my comrades were masturbating thinking about the girls that for me were completely indifferent and moreover my companions used, for those who had fantasies like mine, forms of radical contempt, branding them with epithets of which I understood the meaning for the first time and above all I understood that such epithets were directed towards those like me.

What could I do? It wasn’t a problem related to my class or my school, I realized that in another class or in another school it would have been exactly the same. And then I couldn’t change school. I should have taken note of reality and should have told myself: I’m gay! And I should have been aware all the consequences, understanding that being gay, in my case, could be reconciled with family peace only at the cost of a total fiction destined to last a lifetime, the same speech more or less for religion.

But at that time I didn’t know anything about either my parents or the church and I thought that in the end a conciliation was possible. I was so used to receiving the encouragement of my parents and of the parish priest, that I couldn’t do without it even if I understood that as a gay I could get those things only pretending, but instead of getting the straight way, I took a cross street trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Instead of accepting a game of explicit hypocrisy towards the outside, I preferred to be hypocritical with myself and pretend to maintain a true relationship with my parents and with the church.

I proposed to myself to tell my parents everything, then, when I really had to do so I made vague speeches, of malaise, of disgust of the world and similar things but I never managed to spit out the frog. Then something happened that changed my relationship with my parents, that is, it made me change the point of view I had on them. On the bottom of a drawer I found a pack of condoms, now I knew what they were. My parents seemed to me completely hypocritical. Why did they never speak to me honestly? But they didn’t and relationships with them became even more ambiguous.

With the priest, in confession, I managed to say how things were (at least there was the confessional secrecy) but he told me that if the thing went on without control I would have to tell my parents and they could help me. My attempts or fake attempts to solve the problem went on until I turned 18.

Through the internet I met a gay guy two years older than me (let’s call him Mark) and I talked a lot with him. Mark is a very good guy. A couple of times we met but we only talked, he wanted me to understand a lot of things but at the time I thought he was telling me such things only because he wanted to take me to bed with him. We had met on a very serious and non-gay site but then I was still afraid that gays could assault guys.

In short, Mark put me in a bit of a crisis, he was the first gay guy I knew and was in fact very different from what I thought gay people were. The first time we went out I thought he would try something with me, I tried to reject the idea a bit, but I wanted it very much. We had been talking for hours and I enjoyed answering him by rebutting his arguments with things that now seem to me incredibly stupid but at that time they seemed very intelligent. At the end of the evening I was a bit disoriented by the things he had told me and a little by the fact that he had not tried anything with me.

The following Sunday we went together to the sea, I put the swimsuit underneath because I thought we were going to have a bath and I also thought it would be the right time for my first sexual experience and instead nothing, he didn’t even think about taking a bath, he remained in jeans and we only talked. I was nervous, at the end of the evening I said to him: “But why didn’t you try anything with me today? But are you gay or not?” He looked at me with a questioning face as if to ask me if I was mad, then he shook his head and said:” Excuse me, I guess we don’t understand each other.” During the whole return journey I harassed him with questions that now I understand how stupid they were, and he didn’t answer. He left me at my house very coldly.

The next day I called him a thousand times until he answered me. He was newly talking to me but I felt that things were not like before. I hated him, I thought he would act the part of the proud gay who looks down on the naive friend, I thought he wanted to give a lot of weight to some stupid things that I had told him, among other things I was also a fool who tried to use with him an attitude that aimed to catching his sexual interest, the result was exactly the opposite. He told me that he didn’t feel like going ahead and that his way of being gay was completely different from mine and that trying to build something starting from too distant points of view would have been a useless effort. I called him a couple of times but then he told me he had nothing to say to me.

Now, after three and a half years, I understood what he meant. I cannot reproach him for anything. He left and I was alone. At least for a year I tried to destroy his memory and devalue it in every possible way telling me that he was a hypocrite, then I threw myself on the chats but always telling myself that I was not looking for sex but I just wanted to understand what it was. When I entered a chat, I would enter in theory as an explorer who enters unknown terrain, but at the base there was certainly the sex, I wanted to try, now I wanted to try at any cost, I also put in my profile some explicit photos in theory to see people’s reactions but basically to attract handsome guys.

In the early days I was cautious, I had read many things about AIDS and I didn’t want to take risks, but the temptation was so great. In the end I arranged an appointment with a 32 year old. At first he was well disposed and courted me, even too much, he wanted to take me to his house but I didn’t go there. We said goodbye after two hours of mutual discomfort, at the end he told me: “But why did you look for me?” I told him “To talk a little.” He looked at me with an ironic face and just said: “Ah!” And has gone.

The second I met was 26 years old, well dressed, but of a unique rudeness, three words out of four were bad words. With him I was afraid because I entered stupidly in his car and he started as a rocket and took me to a country site outside the city in a place where I had never been. I really thought it could end badly, maybe it’s just my absurd fantasies but I was afraid it could rape me.

And while we were going, I thought about how to escape this situation. When I got out of the car I did not follow him and I ran away and he chased me, screaming terrible words, when he saw people running he shouted that I was a thief and someone started to chase me, I escaped through the fields, they lost sight of me and gave up. It was also evening, it was dark and it was a terrible cold, but I started walking along the provincial road, I heard the dogs barking and I was scared, then I saw a train passing by and I understood more or less where I was I spent almost an hour to get to the station and waited two hours for the next train.

So I came home after midnight all dirty with mud and my parents asked me a thousand questions. My computer has the password and they couldn’t know anything about me. I said that I had gone for a ride outside the city and that I had slipped into the mud but they didn’t believe it and our relationships became very difficult.

I come to the conclusion. Three weeks ago I saw Mark, I begged him to listen to me, he told me that he now had a boyfriend but I told him that it was fine but that I was only in a desperate need to speak with a serious person who could listen to me and he stopped to talk to me, he listened to me very carefully and he even smiled, then he called his boyfriend and it was evident that Mark was happy (how much I wish I had been in the place of that guy!)

In the following days we met another time. Three days ago he introduced me to his boyfriend who is 25 years old and we went in three to have a pizza. Mark’s boyfriend is very sweet, even with me, he treats me well, it seems almost incredible. In other times I would not have endured being together with two gay guys who were in couple, now it seems to me a beautiful thing. I have two gay friends, two real friends, I felt never better than that. I am learning so many things from them and I realize that I didn’t understand anything at all. They are the ones who told me about Gay Project. If it’s a forum that they like it cannot be a stupid thing. In practice I have been reading a little the forum only a few days before Christmas. Now I understand the things I read but even only a month ago they would have seemed stupid to me, I have to thank Mark and his boyfriend who are slowly helping me to open my eyes. In short, I think it’s worth talking to you a little bit!

_____________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-learning-from-gay-experiences

GAY COUPLE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONING

This post is dedicated to a reflection on the conditioning, in the relationship between two gay guys, deriving from different backgrounds and different social conditions. Generally, when a gay guy falls in love with a guy, whose he doesn’t know the sexual orientation, the question that immediately arises is “is he gay or not?” If on the one hand it is true that it is a fundamental question which automatically conditions all the rest, it is also true that this is not the only question. Often, once a gay guy has ascertained that the guy he is in love with is gay too, after the first moments of enthusiasm the first perplexities arise, but not deriving from a lack of mutual sexual attraction but from the objective difficulty in building a deep relationship because of very distant starting points. Building a relationship between two gay guys is not something essentially sexual, it is necessary to build a relationship between two people that is made of mutual trust, affection and respect. Two variables intervene at this point, which in general are often neglected in the initial phase:

1) The difference in education
2) The difference in social condition

In order to build a relationship of serious love, a condition of equality is indispensable and forms the basis for the subsequent building together. The greater the differences in education and social condition are, the more difficult it is to start something really shared on an equal footing. In any case it is possible to do so but on the basis of a renunciation of one’s role and habits on the part of one of the two guys, made in order to avoid to condition the other, but these sacrifices often hide mental reservations that sooner or later come to the surface with all their disruptive power.

Let’s start from the differences in education between guys who live more or less the same social condition. Among them the differences are manifested in the habits of life, in greater or lesser freedom in behavior and in discourses, in the greater or less inhibition in facing sexuality. It is a question of conditioning but the awareness of one’s homosexuality almost always leads to overcoming educational constraints or to devalue them from within, in the name of the possibility of living an emotional life as a couple. A classic example: the guys who have had a religious education. These guys, when they overcome the problem of religious conditioning, either go beyond radically or remain in that environment in a formal way, and in this choice the education has a fundamental meaning. Differences in the social level are a real and powerful barrier that can arise between two gay guys and can prevent them from living a real life as a couple.

Below are some of the typical symptoms of social distress through very indicative phrases:

1) When I go out with his friends I don’t feel at ease, it’s another world
2) He with my friends is not at ease, I don’t know what takes him, he seems clumsy
3) My friends don’t like him, he talks about things from another planet
4) He has a concept of fun that I don’t understand, for him it’s a ritual, according to me he just acts a role.

Social unease manifests first in external things and then gradually into the others:

a) What was the need for sunglasses of 300 euros?
b) We don’t see each other for a month because he has to go on holiday with his parents, but I think he prefers so
c) But what do I care to see the photos he did in New York!
d) When I propose to go to take a pizza somewhere that I like, he always distorts the mouth
e) At his home? With his mother talking with her sibilant “s”? Let’s forget it!
f) He tells me that I have the southern accent
g) He talks too much about things that don’t interest me
h) He tells me that he would be willing to do anything for me, but he went on vacation with his family
i) Is an engineer, ok, but why does he have to repeat it a thousand times?
j) He tells me that I should get back to school but he’s not telling it for my sake, it’s because he’s ashamed of me

Very often in the conversation there are misunderstandings related to the fact that the two communication codes are different. Just an example: a guy can say anything about his parents but he will not tolerate the negative opinion of of his partner on his parents.
The first guy speaks badly of his father: “My father has always done his thing, he says that it is obvious because he is the one who pays. I cannot stand him, since he knows I’m gay he’s really hateful.”
The second guy adds his critique: “Actually, even Monday he behaved just like an asshole”
The first guy starts to defend his father: “But if didn’t do so people would put him under their feet!”

The true sign of social unease manifests through the absence of the design of a common life, through the underlining that the relationship will go on “as long as it lasts”, “as long as we want”, but also and over all through the absence of total mutual sincerity, as if the other guy were a person with which we share, and only partially, only sexuality. This is the so-called false couple, that is, the couple who shares only a few moments in life and keeps all the rest separate. Often the false couple on the sexual level works well, its weakness emerges only in long times when in moments of eclipse of the sexual interest it is understood that there is not a real community of life.

A characteristic of false couples is the declared idea of maintaining an “open and free” relationship, an idea behind which there is an affective emptiness and a substantial willingness not to be bound.

Often, during the discussions, the boys who find themselves in a false couple tend to maintain their positions and not to give in, the discussion becomes harsh and in principle and it is not rare that they arrive at even bitter quarrels because there is no mutual esteem that is the basic element of a couple’s life.

The rupture of the false couple is in the great majority of cases definitive and not remediable, while in true couples who share deep levels of affection the crisis is overcome and is in fact an element far from negative for the growth of common life.

Lads of high social level are generally unwilling to sacrifice their social position or put it in brackets in the name of homosexuality. There are significant exceptions but, despite everything, what matters most is not how A feels the problem but how B believes that A feels it and often misunderstandings are inevitable.

The real problem is to be two at a substantial level, to have the same perspectives, to behave like an “we” putting aside the individualistic dimension.

Particular attention must be paid to the problem, typical of the couple, of constructing a common sexual world by also putting aside one’s own needs in relation to the other. Shared sexuality means common sexual fantasies, it means living a sexuality built together, discovered together, in conditions of absolute parity.

I happened to see guys who have been living together for years for whom sexuality is in the most evident way an emotional exchange that is aimed at showing the other guy that you want to share his life with him in the deepest sense. It must be said, however, that those guys had realized a real project of common life and that the difficulties linked to misunderstandings by families and by the social environment had only put their relationship to the test and substantially stabilized it.

The sexuality experienced in these terms is really a way of loving that has realized a true community of couple. Getting to these results is not easy and when there are problems of very different education or very different social level overcoming the difficulties requires very strong feelings and very determined choices.

____________

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum: http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/T-gay-couple-and-socio-economic-conditioning