Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 2
» Latest member: francesco1999
» Forum threads: 160
» Forum posts: 160

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 4 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 4 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Forum: Gays and secularity
Last Post: gayprojectforum
Yesterday, 05:04 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
Forum: Gays and secularity
Last Post: gayprojectforum
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 12
Forum: Understand to be gay
Last Post: gayprojectforum
Yesterday, 12:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 12
Forum: Gays and secularity
Last Post: gayprojectforum
11-21-2017, 02:10 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 15
Forum: Gay couples
Last Post: gayprojectforum
11-21-2017, 01:23 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 22
Forum: Gays and sex
Last Post: gayprojectforum
11-19-2017, 01:22 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 21
Forum: Parents of gay boys
Last Post: gayprojectforum
11-19-2017, 12:45 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 20
Forum: Gays and sex
Last Post: gayprojectforum
11-19-2017, 02:51 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 14
Forum: Gays and sex
Last Post: gayprojectforum
11-18-2017, 11:31 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 15
Forum: Gays and religion
Last Post: gayprojectforum
11-17-2017, 02:11 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 21

Posted by: gayprojectforum - Yesterday, 05:04 PM - Forum: Gays and secularity - No Replies

Both in Italy and in France is in full swing for some time now the discussion on the recognition of unions between homosexual persons. About the intervention of the Pope in this regard, on the International Day of Peace, Gay Project has already expressed its point of view with the article “THE POPE AND THE GAY MARRIAGE“,

We find it useful to present here some official positions of the European Community and of the Catholic Church, expressed in official documents accessible to anyone. Precisely in order to avoid distorsive readings, we add all links to all the official mentioned documents.

Article 21 – Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, color, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

The Council of Europe is an international organization whose purpose is to promote democracy, human rights, the European cultural identity and the search for solutions to social problems in Europe. The Council of Europe was founded on May 5, 1949, with the Treaty of London and now has 47 member States.

The institutional seat is in Strasbourg, France. The main instrument of action of the Council of Europe is to develop and promote the conclusion of international agreements or conventions between member States, and often also with other States. The initiatives of the Council of Europe are not binding and must be ratified by the member States. The Council of Europe is an organization in itself, distinct from the European Union.

Has provoked embarrassment to the Council of Europe the recommendation addressed from the apostolic nuncio in Paris, Luigi Ventura, to the Members of the EPP (European Popular Party) to request changes to the draft resolution on sexual discrimination that was going to vote on Jan. 27, 2010. The Socialist MP Luxembourg Lydie Err has labeled as “outrageous and unacceptable” the intervention of the Vatican on the debate in the Council of Europe regarding sex discrimination and homosexual unions. Lydie Err said that the Catholic Church has sent a letter to the members of the EPP Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to “suggest” to vote for amendments that “distort” the document. 
The current version of the draft resolution requests, among other things, to ensure the legal recognition to same-sex couples. “I’m amazed – said the Swiss Socialist, Andreas Gross, author of the report on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender difference and of the corresponding motion for a resolution – I’m amazed that so many amendments have been submitted to the committee since the report had been adopted without objection and with only a few abstentions.” The letter of the nuncio, which could be, perhaps, the result of personal initiative, is dated January 8 but was not announced until Jan. 27, the day on which the meeting was to vote on the draft resolution Gross.

The event has received extensive coverage in the newspapers and this afternoon have appeared on various blogs articles attacking the proposals of Andreas Gross, but avoiding making explicit reference to the document criticized. For the sake of clarity I will at least quote here the summary of the proposal.

The Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights points out that sexual orientation – be it heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality – is a profound part of the identity of each one of us. Under international law nobody should be treated differently because of their sexual orientation. Yet lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people across Europe still face deep-rooted prejudice and widespread discrimination. This can range from physical violence – including, in the worst cases, killings – through to hate crimes, gags on expression, bans on demonstrations, state intrusion into private life and unfair treatment at school or in the workplace.
Transgender people are refused gender reassignment treatment or told they cannot register their new gender, contributing to high rates of suicide in this group.
These human rights violations must end, as well as incitement to commit them from public figures, according to the committee. Meanwhile, Council of Europe member states should ensure legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, providing notably for “next of kin” status and the possibility to jointly parent each other’s children, if not also the right of each partner to adopt the other partner’s children.
Dialogue between all bodies, based on mutual respect, is essential in order to improve mutual understanding, combat attitudes of prejudice and facilitate public debates and reforms on issues concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”

I quote here bellow the fundamental Resolution of the European Parliament on the fight against homophobia in Europe:

The European Parliament,
– having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
– having regard to Articles 2, 3(5), 6, 7, 21 and 27 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 10 and 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
– having regard to the Toolkit to Promote and Protect the Enjoyment of all Human Rights by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) People adopted by the Working Party on Human Rights of the Council of the European Union,
– having regard to Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly resolution 1728 of 29 April 2010 on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and the Committee of Ministers‘ recommendation CM/Rec(2010)5 of 31 March 2010 on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity,
– having regard to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights report of November 2010 on Homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity,
– having regard to its previous resolution of 18 April 2012 on human rights in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter, including implications for the EU’s strategic human rights policy(1) ,
– having regard to its previous resolution of 14 December 2011 on the upcoming EU-Russia Summit(2) ,
– having regard to its previous resolution of 28 September 2011 on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity at the United Nations(3) ,
– having regard to its previous resolution of 19 January 2011 on the violation of freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania(4) ,
– having regard to its previous resolution of 17 September 2009 on the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information(5) ,
– having regard to its previous resolutions on homophobia, and in particular those of 26 April 2007 on homophobia in Europe(6) , of 15 June 2006 on the increase in racist and homophobic violence in Europe(7) , and of 18 January 2006 on homophobia in Europe(8) ,
– having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas the European Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, and must uphold and promote these values in its relations with the wider world;
B. whereas homophobia is the irrational fear of, and aversion to, male and female homosexuality and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice, and is similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and sexism, and whereas it manifests itself in the private and public spheres in different forms, such as hate speech and incitement to discrimination, ridicule and verbal, psychological and physical violence, persecution and murder, discrimination in violation of the principle of equality and unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights, which are often hidden behind justifications based on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection; C. whereas, 
in Russia, criminal and administrative laws against the ‘propaganda of homosexuality’ were enacted in the regions of Ryazan in 2006, Arkhangelsk in 2011, and Kostroma and Saint Petersburg in 2012, and the regions of Novosibirsk, Samara, Kirov, Krasnoyarsk and Kaliningrad are currently considering such laws; whereas these laws provide for various fines of up to EUR 1270 for individuals and up to EUR 12 700 for associations and companies, and whereas the State Duma is considering a similar law;
D. whereas, in Ukraine, the Parliament is examining two draft laws put forward in 2011 and 2012 which would make it an offence to ‘spread homosexuality’, including by ‘holding meetings, parades, actions, demonstrations and mass events aiming at intentional distribution of any positive information about homosexuality’ and provide for fines and up to five years‘ imprisonment, and whereas the Committee on Freedom of Expression and Information of the Ukraine Parliament supports these bills;
E. whereas, in Moldova, the cities of Bălți, Sorochi, Drochia, Cahul, Ceadîr Lunga and Hiliuţi, as well as the Anenii Noi and Basarabeasca districts, recently adopted laws to prohibit the ‘aggressive propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientations’ and, in one case, ‘Muslim activity’, and whereas such measures have already been declared unconstitutional by the Chancellery of State in the case of Chetriş;
F. whereas, in Lithuania, it remains legally unclear whether public information may or may not promote acceptance of homosexuality further to the Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information, as amended in 2010;
G. whereas, in Latvia, a member of the Riga City Council recently tabled a bill to prohibit the ‘propaganda of homosexuality’ with the aim of preventing the Baltic Pride March 2012 from taking place, and whereas this proposal has not yet been examined;
H. whereas, in Hungary, the far-Right Jobbik party recently tabled several bills to create a new crime of =propagation of disorders of sexual behavior”, and a local ordinance was tabled in the Budapest City Council by Fidesz to ‘limit obscene marches’ ahead of the Budapest Gay Pride, and whereas these proposals were subsequently dropped;
I. whereas the EU Delegation to Moldova has expressed ‘deep regret and concern’ about ‘these manifestations of intolerance and discrimination’;
J. whereas the Commission has declared its commitment to ensuring respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the EU and has stated that homophobia has no place in Europe;
K. whereas homophobia continues to manifest itself, in Member States and third countries, in such forms as murders, banned gay prides and equality marches, public use of inflammatory, threatening and hateful language, police failure to provide adequate protection, and authorized violent demonstrations by homophobic groups;
L. whereas the European Parliament remains committed to equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the EU and, in particular, to the adoption of the Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, which has been blocked due to the objections of some Member States; to upcoming proposals for the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents; to the upcoming revision of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia to include homophobic crime; and to a comprehensive roadmap for equality without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity;

Situation in the European Union
1. Strongly condemns any discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and strongly regrets that, in the European Union, the fundamental rights of LGBT people are not yet always fully upheld; calls, therefore, on Member States to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are protected from homophobic hate speech and violence, and ensure that same-sex partners enjoy the same respect, dignity and protection as the rest of society; urges Member States and the Commission to firmly condemn homophobic hate speech or incitement to hatred and violence, and to ensure that freedom of demonstration – as guaranteed by all human rights treaties – is respected in practice;
2. Calls on the Commission to review the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia with a view to strengthening and enlarging its scope to include hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression;
3. Calls on the Commission to ensure that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited in all sectors by completing the anti-discrimination package based on Article 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
4. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that Directive 2004/38/EC on free movement is implemented without any discrimination based on sexual orientation, and calls on the Commission to propose measures to mutually recognize the effects of civil status documents on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition;
5. Draws attention to the findings of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in its report ‘Homophobia, transphobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity’; calls on the Commission and Member States to implement the opinions contained therein to the greatest possible extent;
6. Calls on the Commission to carefully examine the future results of the Agency for Fundamental Rights‘ European LGBT Survey, and take appropriate action;
7. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the annual report on the application of the Charter of fundamental rights includes a strategy to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights in the EU, including full and comprehensive information on the incidence of homophobia in Member States and proposed solutions and actions to overcome it;
8. Reiterates its request that the Commission produce a comprehensive roadmap for equality without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity;
9. Considers that LGBT people’s fundamental rights are more likely to be safeguarded if they have access to legal institutions such as cohabitation, registered partnership or marriage; welcomes the fact that 16 Member States currently offer these options, and calls on other Member States to consider doing so;
Homophobic laws and freedom of expression in Europe
10. Is gravely concerned by developments which restrict freedom of expression and assembly on the basis of misconceptions about homosexuality and transgenderism; considers that EU Member States should be exemplary in the application and protection of fundamental rights in Europe;
11. Regrets that laws of this kind are already used to arrest and fine citizens, including heterosexual citizens, who express support for, or tolerance or acceptance of, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people; also regrets that these laws legitimize homophobia and, sometimes, violence, as in the case of the violent attack on a bus carrying LGBT activists on 17 May 2012 in Saint Petersburg;
12. Condemns the violence and threats surrounding Kiev Pride event on 20 May 2012, at which two gay pride leaders were beaten up, which resulted in the parade being cancelled; recalls that EU agreements are conditional on respect for fundamental rights, as laid down in the Treaties, and therefore calls on Ukraine to introduce legislation to prohibit discrimination, including discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation; is of the opinion that current developments in Ukraine are inconsistent with this requirement; calls on the Ukrainian authorities to immediately revoke the relevant draft laws, propose legislation to prohibit discrimination – including discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation – and commit to making a safe Kiev Pride event possible next year;
13. Underlines the fact that the term ‘propaganda’ is rarely defined; is dismayed that media outlets have demonstrably censored themselves, citizens are intimidated and fear expressing their opinions, and associations and companies using gay-friendly insignia, such as rainbows, may be prosecuted;
14. Highlights the fact that these laws and proposals are inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which precludes discriminatory laws and practices(9) based on sexual orientation, and to which Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and all EU Member States are parties; calls on the Council of Europe to investigate these human rights violations, verify their compatibility with the commitments linked to Council of Europe membership and the European Convention on Human Rights, and take appropriate measures;
15. Furthermore, highlights that education is key and therefore expresses the need for good, accessible and respectful sexual education; urges Member States and the Commission to step up the fight against homophobia through education as well as through administrative, judicial and legislative means;
16. Finally, stresses that national and international courts have consistently affirmed that public morality concerns do not justify differential treatment, including in relation to freedom of expression; points to the vast majority of countries in Europe that do not have such laws, and have thriving, diverse and mutually respectful societies;
17. Calls on the relevant authorities in Russia, Ukraine, Moldova and all EU Member States to demonstrate, and ensure respect for, the principle of non-discrimination and to reconsider these laws and proposals in light of international human rights law and their commitments thereunder;
18. Calls on the Commission, the Council and the External Action Service to take note of these bans and condemn them, particularly in the context of home affairs, bilateral dialogue, and the European Neighbourhood Policy; further calls on the Council of the European Union and the External Action Service to raise this issue in the relevant international fora, such as the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the United Nations;
19. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security/Vice-President of the Commission, the governments and parliaments of Member States, the national governments and parliaments of Russia and Ukraine, the regional parliaments of Russia cited herein, and the Moldovan local councils cited herein.

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0126.
(2)Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0575.
(3)Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0427.
(4)OJ C 136 E, 11.5.2012, p. 50.
(5)OJ C224 E,19.8.2010, p. 18.
(6)OJ C 74 E,20.3.2008, p. 776.
(7)OJ C 300 E,9.12.2006, p. 491.
(8)OJ C 287 E, 24.11.2006, p.179.
(9)Toonen v. Australia , Communication No. 488/§992, UN Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (1994); Young v. Australia , Communication No. 941/2000, UN Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000 (2003); X v. Columbia , Communication No. 1361/2005, UN Doc. CCPR/C/89/D/1361/2005 (2007)

In the face of these documents that show unequivocally that discrimination against homosexuals is considered odious and intolerable by the European Union institutions, the Catholic Church continually reiterates that discrimination is instead a moral duty to defend society against homosexuals. The current pope, Benedict XVI, had already expressed very clearly his thoughts in two documents:

1) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of the homosexuals persons” (Joseph Ratzinger – July 24, 1992)

2) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons” (Joseph Ratzinger – June 3, 2003)

I quote here bellow some excerpts from the first document:

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action … But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”

According to the Pope if against homosexuals trigger violent reactions are the same homosexuals who are responsible for.

“14. The sexual orientation of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people… are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. no. 9).

In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.

15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. no. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as “family” participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. no. 9)?

16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17).”

I quote here bellow some excerpts from the second document:

“4. 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. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.”

“5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favor giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defenses and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

“The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfill the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.”

“10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favor of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.”

“11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.”

I conclude this article by quoting a recent major Italian Supreme Court’s decision, which dismissing the complaint of the father, has given a child to the mother exclusively, even if the mother was living with another woman with whom she had a homosexual relationship, because the father had attacked the partner of the mother before the child and for 18 months he did not attend regular meetings with the child in a secure environment, in accordance with the precautionary decision of the judge.

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint because: “the basis of the applicant’s complaint are not scientific certainties or data of experience, but the mere prejudice that living in a family centered on a homosexual couple could be detrimental to the balanced development of the child. In this way, it is assumed exactly what on the contrary is to be proved, i. e. the harmfulness of that family environment for the child “(Supreme Court of Cassation, judgment no. 601, Sec. Civil I – January 13, 2013).

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - Yesterday, 04:42 PM - Forum: Gays and secularity - No Replies

Even in the twenty-first century Italy is found to be at the tail end of Europe in recognition of civil rights. The Pope's (Benedict XVI) speeches, which start from visions of homosexuality that have nothing to do with reality and legitimize a morality based on pure prejudice, finds easily paladins, especially in time of the election campaign. The tones range from the most clearly aggressive to those seemingly hesitant but the basic attitude is the same and is, unfortunately, very common, much more common in the high spheres of politics than in the Italian population. There is no real culture of civil rights.

Recently, both the Pope that some prelates have particularly emphasized the principle of religious freedom, a principle that even for a laymen is certainly crucial. A recent interview of Archbishop Mamberti published by the website of Vatican Radio, "Bishop Mamberti on judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: threatened freedom of religion and conscience" points out that the European Court has begun to recognize the rights of the Catholic Church in its relations with the States and with the individuals on the basis of the principle of religious freedom. One of the cases he cited in the article is “Fernández Martínez v. Spain”.

On 15 May 2012 the court in Strasbourg has issued the ruling in Martínez Fernández v. Spain (no. 56030/07). In the judgment, the court, by six votes to one, legitimated the decision of the Spanish episcopate not to renew the contract to a teacher, married priest and activist of the Movement (Pro celibato Opcional) to promote optional celibacy of the priests, because in this case, "has to be followed the principle of religious freedom protected by the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION"

In Spain (as in Italy), teachers of religion in public institutions are State employees appointed on the nomination and approval of the local bishop, who has the power to revoke or not renew this agreement, being so public institute employer bound by the decision of the bishop. The Court considered that the main issue raised by the case is whether the State was required to give precedence to the applicant's right to respect for his private life (art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) on the alleged right of the Catholic Church to refuse to renew his contract. In this case, the Court considered that "this case is strictly religious, even if the applicant is an employee of the State."

In fact, the Court's decision is formally unexceptionable, although it is based on an assumption that is highly immoral i.e. the right granted by the Concordat between the Holy See and Spain according to which the Catholic Church is entitled to appoint and dismiss teachers at its discretion in a state school for a teaching that, for explicit recognition of the Court, is strictly related to a particular religious denomination, despite its being mandatory. The teaching in a State school of a discipline related to a particular religious denomination is not an exercise of religious freedom, but is rather an obvious wound inflicted on freedom of other religions. The problem arises in the same way in Italy.

What is meant by "religious freedom"? Religious freedom is the freedom of the Catholic Church or the freedom of all religions on the same level? In other words, it is permissible freedom without equality? Are Concordats that grant privileges to a single Church a permissible exercise of religious freedom or are a blatant violation of equality as necessary corollary of the religious freedom of others?

As the issue mentioned by Archbishop Mamberti is about Spain, we have to remember that Spain and the Holy See are bound by the Concordat signed in 1953, I quote a few items:

Article I
Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion continues to be the only religion of the Spanish nation and is entitled to the rights and prerogatives in accordance with the Divine Law and Canon Law.

Article VI
In accordance with the concession of the Popes St. Pius V and Gregory XIII, the Spanish priests will raise daily prayers for Spain and for the Head of State [then FRANCISCO FRANCO], according to the traditional formula and the requirements of the Sacred Liturgy.

Article XXVII
1. The Spanish State guarantees the teaching of the Catholic religion, as ordinary matter and compulsory in all educational institutions at all levels, both state and non-state actors.
Shall be exempt from such teaching the children of non-Catholics, at the request of a parent or legal guardian.
2. In the State primary schools the teaching of religion shall be provided by the teachers, unless, by the Ordinary (the Bishop), is not made opposition to any of them for the reasons to which it relates can. 1381 paragraph 3 of the Code of Canon Law. Will be given also to the pastor or his delegate with regular catechetical lessons.
3. In the state Intermediate Education Centers the teaching of religion shall be provided by priests or religious teachers, alternatively, by secular professors, appointed by the competent civil authority on a proposal from the Ordinary.
In the case of military schools the proposal will be up to the Castrense (military).Vicar General 
4. - omissis -
5. The teaching of religion in universities and similar centers will be taught by priests in possession of academic degree of Doctor, awarded by an ecclesiastical university, or equivalent in the case of religious Order. Passed the test of teaching ability, their appointment will be made on a proposal from the Ordinary.
6. Professors of religion, appointed in accordance with the provisions of the numbers 3, 4 and 5 of this Article, shall enjoy the same rights as other teachers and will be part of the teaching staff of the center of where they are.
They will be removed upon the request of the diocesan ordinary for any of the reasons contained in the above-mentioned can. 1381 paragraph 3 of the Code of Canon Law.
The diocesan Ordinary must first be heard when removing a professor of religion is considered necessary by the school responsible for teaching or disciplinary reasons.
7. Professors of religion in non-state schools must be equipped with a special certificate of competence issued by the Ordinary.
The revocation of this certificate deprives without doubt the teacher of the possibility of teaching religion.
8. Religion programs for both state and non-state schools will be determined in agreement with the competent ecclesiastical authority.
For the teaching of religion can be adopted only textbooks approved by the ecclesiastical authority.

I wonder if the Concordat Church-Spain is really an exercise of freedom of religion or is rather the legalization of a certain type of religious freedom of the Catholic Church detrimental to equality, i.e. to the same religious freedom of other faiths. Evidently the principle of religious freedom, as the Catholic Church understands it, is compatible with systems privileges granted by Concordats. Even the European Union keeps itself away from addressing issues of this kind, but in the name of religious freedom is still opposed the recognition of the fundamental rights of equality that the same CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION explicitly protects.


Article 20 - Equality before the law
Everyone is equal before the law.

Article 21 - Non-discrimination
1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

Unfortunately, a Concordat is more important than these principles.

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - Yesterday, 12:52 AM - Forum: Understand to be gay - No Replies

Hello Project,

From some months now I follow Gay Project that is practically unique throughout the network and allowed me to understand many things and gave a serious answer to many questions.

My name is Max, I am 29 years old, luckily for me I have a good job, which is a rarity these days, and I live on my own in a small town in the northern Italy. To accept my being gay it took me so long, I had two girlfriends, the first story was a thing of little weight, but the second was important. I needed a rest, I felt alone, I was 26 years old when it started.

I was used to let myself go with this girl, at least a little, then I realized the reason but I didn't realize at that time. I had sex with her, but in a very strange way, I never took the initiative, such things didn’t event come into my mind, she had to do everything, I abandoned myself just passively and she brought me to orgasm as well. The first few   times, that's what I understood later, it seemed important to me to have an erection with a girl because this drove away the fear of being gay. When I reached orgasm I fell a sense of disappointment, as if it were something completely stupid and in fact for me it was just a physical reaction. She was used to give great importance to the fact that I had reached orgasm, she felt really proud of that.

Only a very few times I've been to stimulate her, but she had to basically teach me everything because I had no idea of how a woman could get excited. I think that in general a 26 year old guy knows very well what to do to a woman but I did not know. She wanted me to try penetration but I never did, a little out of fear that she became pregnant and a bit because for me it was not a spontaneous thing. So, according to her, things were going very well and I was just a little clumsy but I knew that it was not the case and that I was forced, as you say, I was “doing an experiment” on myself to see if I could eventually adapt to living with a woman.

The fact of having sex with her, however, gave me the feeling of not being gay and things went on like this, and here comes my discovery of your blog, in fact I had then also another sex life, I masturbated but always just watching gay videos or making fantasies about guys I met at the gym. Frankly these things, then, hadn’t any great significance for me, I said to myself that it was to make comparisons just like, I think, all the straight guys do and then, after all, it didn’t even happen so often.

I never made fantasies about girls but then it seemed to me obvious and almost meritorious because I had a girlfriend who had sex with me. With my girlfriend I had a very special relationship because her parents didn’t even know that we were somehow in love, or at least I had not ever wanted them to know because, I think, subconsciously I was afraid of getting bound, instead friends knew, both her and mine and, after all, that my friends knew it, for me, was an important thing. I had told her about a lot of strange things, about why I didn’t want to marry her and didn’t even want to have children, all these things seemed absurd to her and she was quite sure that she could change my mind.

Sometimes I thought that she considered me as a person of very little importance and that she was only interested in me to involve me into her life in order to complete her project of life, however, I can say that sex between us had become a habit, we were together also to have sex and I liked it, or at least tolerated it, but then when it was over I forgot the whole thing and did not think about until the next time and basically I didn’t want it really. I remember that when we were together she was totally focused on sex on the contrary I was thinking about something else and I was wondering why I was having sex with her.

We weren't used to talk about us, but always and only about her projects that in fact did not concern us as couple but our being a couple in the eyes of other people, we were talking about going here or there, doing this or that, nothing more. I was surprised that nevertheless she felt in love with me but I think she really felt.

A couple of years ago I happened by chance on Gay Project and I began to read. The more I read, the more I opened my eyes. At one point I said: but then I’m really gay! I was used to think that the fact that I had never done those things that are said to be typical of gay guys was a clear evidence that I was not gay, and in addition I had sex with a girl. Then by reading more and more your blog, this reasoning was beginning to seem absurd, I began to think to the fact that sexual fantasies are a serious matter and slowly, I can say, I started living that things with more awareness, but at most I could consider myself bisexual, that was the idea I had formed of me, but then that idea has been shattered, but I didn’t like the idea of being gay.

The forum helped me a lot, but now sex with my girlfriend had become a habit and frankly I thought it would be still better to have sex with a guy whom I fantasized about but I thought it was absolutely impossible for me as a concrete experience. Let's say that I had reached a balance, a compromise, certainly unstable but reassuring.

Then three months ago things have changed, I met by accident a guy 21 y. o.. He came where I work and had some work problems to be solved, things were rather complicated and he asked me if I could help him. The way he asked me and his appearance made me come to a heart attack. I was enchanted. I had other work to do but I invited him to sit down and I closed the door. He began to tell me about various problems and I tried to find the best solution concentrating at most. Not all problems could be solved immediately, for some things we needed our attention and time.

We met again in the following days. We were experiencing more and more a wonderful climate. I went to work just to see that guy. I asked myself a lot of questions and he did the same thing. Slowly the atmosphere became very pleasant, he called at home to get information and always we ended up chatting about things that with the work had nothing to do. Both were trying to prolong the conversation as much as possible. It took a little to start a conversation less formal and more friendly, then came the first pizza together and the first evening spent talking in the car, then he asked me how I figured out and accepted it, I told him that everything happened without any problem, all came very natural, and he told me about himself and even that he had spent long nights to read blog posts of Project.

The day when we told each other everything was beautiful, I think it was something absolutely unique and I felt very happy. When I looked into his eyes and I saw his smile I was the happiest man in the world, I wanted to hug him but I did not have the courage neither had he, I was afraid that even the slightest physical contact could break the spell. We met for almost three months, and then he told me that it was his first time and he wanted to make love with me, I told him all my fears, insisting that I had a girlfriend although frankly I wanted to be with him only. With him, I could also talk about my sexual fantasies.

Sometimes it seemed impossible that a guy like him could be in love with me, but things were just so. I felt a sexual attraction to him but also a strong total tenderness, I loved him just as a person, he made me feel loved, made me feel that he loved me, trusted me completely, we were happy together and we are still. Project, what you write about gay affectivity is absolutely true. Recently, I spent two days with him and I do not think I could do without it.

It is two weeks that I no longer see my girlfriend, I could not tell her anything and in the end I'm sorry but I do not think she would understand.  

I believe that I have never been so happy as today. It is not a matter of sex, it's that I feel just totally in love with this guy. In everything he does and says there never was a discordant note and such a guy is in love with me! Guys, before meeting him, I was convinced that my life would have been to have sex with a woman without any real involvement and act like I was in love with her, I thought I'd never have a boyfriend, I took it for granted, and then at age 29 the possibilities decrease, but no! As you say, Project, when you meet the right guy, life changes. And I love my boyfriend totally, I like him in every way, just as a person because he’s truly a good person, a honest guy who wants to love and be loved. I want to tell everyone, do not put in your head that love does not exist and you will not find it because when you least are waiting for him, a guy looks into your eyes and your life changes! A hug to everyone! And one very special to Project (now I really understand the deep meaning of what you said!)

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - 11-21-2017, 02:10 PM - Forum: Gays and secularity - No Replies

This post stems from a comment that a user has left on my posting on a blog in English of Gay Project. That comment was about guys who fall in love with other guys and crave them sexually but abstain from sex for religious reasons. I added my reply that you can read below:

"I sincerely think that consider chastity as a simple abstinence from sex means to reduce and even change a bit its significance. Within a couple relationship the choice to abstain from sex for religious reasons made by only one of the two guys can be not really shared and therefore, in this case, is substantially imposed to the partner. It would be like trying to fast for religious reasons by imposing fasting also to other people. Add that there are situations where shared sexuality has a so large affective value in determining the well-being of the other that refraining from sex for religious reasons ends to be identified with a lack of love towards those who really need it. I mean that sexuality is far from being just selfish and avoid it, sometimes, may be more a gesture of pride than an act of love. I will try to publish a post today about the meaning of the prohibitions on religious grounds, given according to a secular perspective and I’ll try to consider two concepts:
1) The sense of guilt and
2) How far obedience is a virtue and not a delegation of responsibility."

I shall now deal with concrete matters as always starting from the facts.

It is a fact that religions propose to believers rules to follow, some rules are moral codes that are shared by the majority of non-believers (such as "do not kill", "Do not bear false witness", etc..) and don’t need any justification because are considered pillars of civil life, while others doesn't find any objective justification, so that precepts as monogamy that are considered essential by some religions are not at all by others. Some of these precepts derive from traditions and may have some historical very remote justifications that have been lost over the centuries, although despite this, the observance of the precepts remains mandatory. It is the assumed absolute and not historical dimension of religions which makes for them at least theoretically impossible to adequate to present historical situation.

Many rules about food and sex, seen from a secular point of view, are quite formal and apparently unmotivated. The prohibition of eating certain types of meat or fish that are food commonly used by other people does not find any reason except the fact that "it is mandatory", and is accepted on the basis of a principle of authority and therefore its violation constitutes "formally" a fault. Let's talk about faults in the sense that they are considered to be such by those who follow that religion, because for the others are facts entirely indifferent.

Certain requirements such as “not eating meat on Friday”, who were only formal, created, in times not very distant, considerable guilt. But I would deal mainly with prohibitions related to sexuality, that even today, and presumably for very long periods, will continue to affect human behavior and create suffering.

The moral, as well as historical religions conceive it, does not look at the "moral" substance of the facts but stops to assumptions and categories only formal and this happens especially in sexual matters. The prejudice becomes precept and shows the power of the authority in the name of which some behavior (or some omission), by itself completely meaningless or even harmful, is required. No one tries to explain the meaning of these precepts, because their sense comes only by the principle of authority. Rational analysis could weaken these precepts showing that are not needed and sometimes are inappropriate and even harmful. Obedience is usually presented to the children as the highest virtue. The good child does what parents want, if he acts like this, he will be gratified, if he doesn’t he has to face a more or less serious guilt. Guilt creates psychological subjection and dependence and thus confirms the principle of authority by the need to be forgiven.

We go down in the concrete. Chastity, seen as abstaining from sex is considered a virtue and the exercise of sexuality is considered a vice, which is transformed into a virtue only when sexuality is exercised in order to procreate. These statements, which are theoretically shared by many people, are pure prejudice.

Psychology teaches that sexuality lived in a peaceful, spontaneous and uninhibited climate and then in a non transgressive way, is a key condition of well-being, despite this, chastity is considered a virtue and sexuality, if not for procreation, a vice. Why does this happen? The "rational" explanation (for those who believe of course it’s a nonsense) lies in the mechanism prohibition / transgression / guilt / need for forgiveness that strengthens the authority of those who support the prohibition and administer the forgiveness. If the prohibition is easy to comply with the guilt is quite rare and the authority cannot realy be reinforced, but if the prohibition or condemnation is about sexuality and it is an absolute prohibition, virtually and sometimes substantially "against nature" (e.g. the prohibition of masturbation), the transgression is unavoidable and through the mechanism of forgiveness, the strengthening of the authority which imposes and manages the prohibition is very clear.

It is said by many that all religions lead to the repression of sexuality and the discourse seems realistic and could be summed up like this: a guy who would have a free sexuality if he comes within the orbit of a religion is conditioned and begins to repress his sexuality. Religion is the cause and the repression of sexuality would be the effect. But why if so many guys come to religion and only some of them end up sexually repressed remaining in that religion while others who approached religion then turn away? The answer is easily found if, instead of saying that the adherence to a religion is the cause of sexual repression, we invert the reasoning and realize that are the guys who are sexually repressed who eventually adhere to certain religions because within those religions their sexual self-repression is considered a merit if not a form of holiness.

It’s surprising that Christianity, that at the level of Gospel, is the religion of love of neighbor, that is the religion of "doing" good actions for the neighbor (feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, etc..) is rather widely understood as the religion of "do not", of “stay away” of “not be defiled”. In essence, unfortunately, instead of feeling guilty when you omit to "do" the good that you can do, you end up feeling guilty when you "do" something that is prohibited only because it is prohibited, even if the prohibition has no other motivation beyond the strengthening of the authority who manages it.

If religion was lived within the personal conscience considered the supreme judge of the morality of the actions instead of being consecrated only by the subordination to an external authority, how many prohibitions would continue to exist? The level of morality would decrease? Frankly I do not think so. Why delegate the choices of our conscience to an external authority? Why are we so afraid of just being men? Why give up the freedom to think?

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - 11-21-2017, 01:23 PM - Forum: Gay couples - No Replies

Let me to start with an analogy derived from physical chemistry, in my opinion really appropriate to introduce the subject.

[Image: provep2.gif]

The potential energy of a body in a field of gravity as the terrestrial one we live in is proportional to the height of the body, to bring a body upwards a certain amount of work must to be done that is stored in the form of potential energy in the body and can be returned as kinetic energy when the body falls from the highest position to return to the lowest. All bodies have a natural tendency to occupy the lowest positions that they can reach, i.e. to be located at the minimum possible level of potential energy. Observing the curve of the figure, imagine that we have a body at point A, the minimum point of a curve (a bond) over which the body can move. If the stretch of the curve from A to C had not a maximum but was constantly decreasing, the body naturally would slide in position C and there would remain stably because the point C would be for it the lowest point reached. If, however, between A and C there was a maximum point B, the body to pass from A to C should first increase its potential energy by climbing up to the point B and then decrease it down to the point C. The difference in height between A and C represents the difference between the initial state and the final one, if the height of the point C is less than the height of the point A, we can say that the final state C is more stable than the initial one, but whether to move from A to C the body must exceed the maximum represented by the point B to a height greater than the height of A, the body to achieve a more stable final state © must move through an intermediate state (B) more unstable (at higher potential energy) compared to the initial A. The difference in height between A and B is the activation energy of the route between A and C, if the body which is located in A does not arrive first in B charging potential energy cannot fall into C markedly decreasing its potential energy compared to the starting point A.

If the body of which we speak cannot receive energy from the outside, the passage from A to C takes place only if there is no activation peak B, and is an irreversible step, the body falls, loses its kinetic energy in the impact and stays there because it cannot regain its initial position A. To move the body from C to A it would be necessary to supply power from outside and this was excluded by assumption, the body remains then permanently in C.

If instead it is assumed that it is possible to supply energy to the system from the outside, fails the concept of irreversibility, the body that is located in A must receive from the outside an activation energy equal to the difference in height between A and B (relatively small) to get in C (hypothesized to a lower level of A) and returns energy equal to the difference in height between B and C, higher than the activation energy, the process then, at the end, leads to a decrease in potential energy and to greater stability. If the body was in C it could return to A, but just getting from outside energy equal to the gap between C and B, activation energy of the transition between C and A, and returning at the end a share of energy corresponding to the difference between B and A, lower than the activation energy, in this case the process would result in a final state less stable than that of departure. These concepts have a general validity in many fields and are the basis of the theory of stability.

Let's apply what has been said in the world of affectivity. Imagine the stress put on the ordinate and imagine the abscissa represents a series of possible states for a guy, from the condition of single “stable”, who don’t even imagine to have a life together with another guy (stretch before the point A) to the single “who is moving towards a couple’s involvement” (stretch AC) up to reach the condition of a couple’s partner in unstable condition (stretch over C). The curve is the so-called curve of stress. Assume that a guy is in state A, the point of minimum stress and then of relative stability. If the peak represented by point B there was not and the stretch of the curve from A to C was constantly decreasing, the way toward a less stressful situation C would be natural and spontaneous. The guy gradually passing from A to C would reduce his stress gradually to the new situation of stability. However it happens very often that the curve of stress presents a maximum between A and C, in this case, to pass from a situation of relative minimum stress A to another relative minimum of stress, inferior to A, represented by point C, is required energy (stress) of activation, i.e. is required an increase in stress leading to overcome stress peak represented by point B, in order to be placed in a final situation of greater stability C.

Suppose that the point A represents a subject in condition of being single in equilibrium and the point C represents the same subject in living couple’s condition in equilibrium. Let us assume for hypothesis that C is a less stressful condition than A, if the curve AC is always descending the transition from A to C is spontaneous and does not present any problem in terms of increased stress, if between A and C there is a maximum B, to move from A to C the activation stress is needed. The higher is this activation stress, the more the process is difficult. Furthermore, if the peak B does not exist, the one that is located in A sees the prospect free up to C, i.e. understands where he is going, and then if the final situation will be of greater or lesser stability, but if the peak B exists, and then the moving from A to C needs an activation stress, the one that is located in A is not able to see what is beyond the peak B and therefore cannot understand at the outset if the overrun of the stress peak B will be advantageous or disadvantageous, because the point C may also be higher than A and the situation of married life (gay couple) could be more stressful than that of single.

For a hetero, typically, the AC stretch presents no points of maximum between A and C, the subject understands from the beginning towards where he is moving and can therefore realize from the beginning the fact that his condition in situation of couple’s life in some cases would be worse than that of single (C higher than A). For a gay guy, instead, activation stress of the process that leads him from being a single to the couple’s condition does really exist and is represented by social problems and the partial acceptance of homosexuality that must be overcome to get to married life (gay couple). Moreover for a gay guy it is not predictable from the beginning, for the very existence of the peak B, if the final result of the attempt to reach the condition of couple's life will be stabilizing (less stress) or further destabilizing (higher stress). Assuming, hypothetically, to simplify the discussion, that the couple's life is less stressful than single’s life (C lower than A), to move from state A to state C there are many possible ways all different from one another, some of them have very high activation stress, others much lower. 

Chemists know that the presence of a catalyst causes a reaction with strong activation energy, what thereby tends not to occur, can instead easily take place through a series of intermediate steps all at low activation energy. So in the affective life, thinking to move from a situation of single to that of couple in one step is unrealistic (high activation stress and high uncertainty about the stability of married life (gay couple) compared with the condition of single) and so we try to create a series of intermediate steps, all low activation stress, which can lead to the final result. Inter alia by evaluating the increase of stress step by step you can get an idea of the convenience of the entire process. It starts by creating a contact, then sympathy, then a friendship, a friendship ever closer and with every step you evaluate the opportunity to take the next step.

I come now to the idea of identity and complementarity. A gay guy can fall deeply in love with another guy when he feels really similar to him, in this sense, the fact that the other is gay is a necessary but not sufficient condition. It is not enough to fall in love with a guy, otherwise it would not even be homosexuality, but he must also be a gay guy, because without this condition reciprocity is theoretically impossible. Basically starting from all "guys", we are limited to the subset "gay guys", but the progressive restriction of the field goes further by imposing the condition that he is a "gay guy congenial" i.e., one that we can perceive as profoundly similar. Here's an example of restrictive condition, a hidden gay guy directs his research among the "hidden gay guys." And yet, a gay guy who has a life experience linked to a strong sense of religion is predominantly oriented towards guys with similar experiences. It is then natural that a guy is orientated towards guys whom he perceives to have a sexuality similar to his own, that is based on similar fantasies and sexual behavior, condition without which the sexual equilibrium is actually very difficult. It is certainly easier to find couple’s harmony between persons closely similar that share the same type of sexuality and for this have no particular inconvenience in couple’s sexuality, that does not require, in these cases, adaptation efforts on the part of either. These identification mechanisms are the basis of the relations of friendship and also apply in the hetero field but in the hetero field sexuality has inevitably well-defined gender roles and then, in a couple's sexual dimension strictly heterosexual, identification has a very relative sense, while for a gay guy it remains an important value in the strictly sexual field. Why a guy can feel more or less at ease in Gay Project? Why can he be more or less able to make friends in this area? The answer comes by itself, the greater is the degree of affinity with other guys, the higher is the is degree of integration and gratification. 

For a gay guy towards guys apply rules similar to those that govern the relationships of a straight guy with the girls: there is no defined border between friendship and love, but serious friendship is the minimum condition for any genuine relationship as a couple. I would add that the roles, and do not talk about sex roles, but about familiar ones, for a hetero guy have a meaning also in relation to children, in these situations the differentiation between the male and the female in the couple is automatic and spontaneous. Among gay people instead the condition of substantial equality is one of the few guarantees of equilibrium and stability. The more the relationship is unbalanced, the more is fragile. I should add that among gay people identification mechanism also acts deeply within the couple already established, if it is a real couple: sometimes a guy assumes the attitudes of the other or the attitudes of the face and body, ways of expression, and also of reasoning are shared and, over time, if the relationship goes on well, each guy actually perceives the other as the other half of himself. These mechanisms act in the same way in loving friendships, more or less unilaterally sexualized, and in so called best friendships that for a gay guy can be a step "low activation stress" to more engaging relationships.

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - 11-19-2017, 01:22 PM - Forum: Gays and sex - No Replies

About gay sexuality there are a lot of urban legends based on things that with gay sexuality have really nothing to do, such as pornography or improbable analogies with straight sexual behavior, as if gay sexuality were somehow similar to hetero sexuality.

Hetero sexuality is a sexuality that is complementary, there are acts (vaginal penetration) without which the sexual intercourse is not even an actual intercourse, the distinction between preliminaries and sexual act itself has a biological significance in terms of procreation, the gender roles are essential because a man and a woman are sexually differentiated.

In a relationship between two guys, i.e. in a homosexual relationship, a guy doesn’t seek complementarity, on the contrary he loves his partner because sees that guy precisely as another guy, male from all points of view. A gay guy doesn’t’ see at all his partner as a replacement of a woman, it makes no sense to talk about gender roles in gay relationships and even in gay sexual relationships and it makes no sense to think that there is a behavior without which gay sexual intercourse is not an actual gay sexual intercourse.

Pornography carries traditional concepts very different from those just expressed. Let's ask ourselves why. Between the definition of "gay as a guy who falls in love with guys," which is what we take for right definition here in the Project and I think justifiably, and the definition of "gay as a guy who has sex with guys", which is the common definition of a gay guy, there is an abyss.

These are two very different concepts and there are a lot of guys who have sex with guys without even falling in love with them, most of pornography is dedicated to them, they are often people who also have a straight sexual life and consider sex with a guy as a diversion, of course, these people tend to bring in a relationship with a guy behavior patterns typically straight as the idea that the essence of sexuality is the penetration or the idea of gender roles that is very far from spontaneous sexuality of guys who fall in love with other guys.

When I talk about gay sexuality I’m not referring to pornography or to what people believe to be gay but typically to what most guys who fall in love with guys (i.e. gay in this sense) live and desire. This "real" gay sexuality has nothing to do with rampant pornography, to the point that a gay guy (in our sense) in a porn video tends to see especially the first part and leaves the video when the affective dimension disappears at all, but I would add that the most popular videos among the guys who really love guys, are videos of pampering and sexual tenderness, things that generally to consumers of pornography, who have sex with guys but don’t love them, appear to be free of the essential content and almost trivial. In a dimension of true gay sexuality as a form of affection are just the affectionate gestures that have huge value, also sexual, yes, but a value of deeply affective sexuality.

Let me explain with an example, looking at each other and exchanging a warm smile during a physical contact with another guy, while caressing each other, even intimately, is something that has a huge significance in terms of emotional exchange. The sexual togetherness, traveling on the same wavelength is also the sign of an affective togetherness which is the basis of that sexuality. And then there's a fundamental thing: it does not matter what you do, but with whom you do it. Those looking for sex (so-called gay) in a chat to go straight to the point are interested in “what” not in “with whom”. I would say that these people are not gay but are just guys who have sex with guys.

[Image: sg.png]

The red circle represents the set of guys who have sex with guys, the common definition of gay guys, the blue circle represents the guys who fall in love with guys, our definition of gay guys, these two circles have in common the area 2 where sexuality is linked to falling in love. The area 1 represents sexuality lacking a true affective component, and the area 3 represents guys who fall in love with guys but do not have sex with them. People commonly defined as gay sexuality that of the red circle, but the real gay sexuality is that of the area 2 and is a typical affective sexuality.

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - 11-19-2017, 12:45 PM - Forum: Parents of gay boys - No Replies

On December 13, 2008, at 16.40 I got the email you can read below. Today I post here this email translated into English. Thanks Francis, thanks Matthew! What you wrote, Francis, is for me a deep gratification!

Hello Project,
My name is Francis, I am 45 years old, I live in a little village in a district of Piedmont, and most importantly I’m the father of Matthew, a gay guy 19 y.o.. I'd love it if you could publish this email in your forum. Until last June, Matthew, who is my only child, had always given me great satisfactions, but above all he was good at school had always been affectionate with me and Mom. In short, he was the son every father would have wanted.

He had a girlfriend who was a very talented girl and we liked her a lot and they seemed to be happy, then, at the end of June Matthew was promoted to the fifth year of high school with honors but he was not happy. We tried to ask him what was wrong but he responded in a vague way and tried not to worry us.

In July, he broke relations with the girl, we asked him why and he said: "These things are ours, but we are friends, she doesn’t have anything to blame herself, it's just we felt no more to go ahead .. Come on, do not worry .. ". A few days later I met Mary, the now former girlfriend of Matthew (our village is small and we know each other) and I tried to ask her and she told me more or less the same words that Matthew had said, I asked if Matthew had misbehaved and she said: "Matthew is a great guy and I wish him a world of good, but we think it's better that way."

I did not insist, but I could not understand the meaning of these speeches. Matthew did not seem particularly upset by the fact that he had broken the relationships with Mary and behaved as usually. Usually in the evening my wife and I come back home together and find Matthew at home to study. We work in the same office and we always come back home at around 18:30, because the bus we usually take respects times in a very precise way. One day it happened that we left one hour earlier and we took the bus one hour earlier. We arrived home. Matthew was not there and his computer was on, I was there and I accidentally took a look at his computer that was open on the homepage of your Gay Project forum.

The word gay has upset me, I cannot deny, I felt a blow to the heart. I said, "Oh, Matthew is gay!" I didn’t touch anything, I said to my wife, who was already beginning to prepare for dinner, that I had to go for a moment by a friend and I'd be back after an hour. A lot of thoughts went through my head. I knew nothing of the gays and I had in mind a lot prejudices, I was upset but I didn't want at all Matthew understand it. I came back home deliberately after the usual time. Matthew was in his room and did not suspect anything. But the name of the site was stuck in my head and the next day during working hours, I went to look for it without being seen by my wife.

At the beginning I felt lost, I was wondering what I was reading, because what I read did not fit at all with the idea I had in mind about gays. In the following days I continued to read secretly the forum and I found stories that I liked very much and I said, "Well, if Matthew is gay as these guys ..." And I did not have the courage to finish the sentence, but basically I wanted to say that I would not have seen anything strange there, but, before, I never would have thought I could make a speech like that.

Then I began to follow the discussions on the forum and what the guys had said and they seemed right like my son, I would have been fine that Matthew frequented guys like that, I confess that I read the part for youngsters to understand slowly a bit deeper what it was. You, Project, sometimes also blame parents that go on sites for parents of gay guys and push them to not be hypocrites, this has hurt me a little, I also read things about the therapy to restore gays to heterosexuality, and I was shocked but then I said: "But I would not do such a thing to my son even if I had been forced! But how can people even think of such things!"

I have to confess that I did not know what to do, I felt guilty, I knew that Matthew did not know that I knew and I was dishonest with him. I love my wife but I have not told her, I had found it out by chance but Matthew might want not to tell it to his mother neither to me, it was only he who could authorize me to tell my wife. One day I took my courage in both hands, with the excuse to go to town in the afternoon we went along in the car, I told him what had happened and that I was sorry to have violated his privacy, he asked me if I had told his mother and I said no. He said: "Damn, but you're more complicated than me and gave me a pat on my hand.

Then I asked: "But do you have a boyfriend?" He told me he had been in love with a straight guy and that it was hard to forget. I asked him if Mary knew and he said, "Of course". I told him that she had not said anything to me and he told me that Mary is a girl like it should be who had loved him but in the end they realized that they could not go on like this. I told him that I had read the forum and he told me that he had read everything, and that was very useful to understand many things.

Project, Matthew told me he wanted to write to you but did not do so because he felt embarrassed. Then, I told my wife who tried to respond as best as possible but was visibly upset. In the evening she started to read the forum and has been there until late, then she said: "But in that forum there are very good guys.." and she did not want to finish the sentence. In practice, with Matthew it has been formed a climate very very nice.

From a few weeks now, he has a guy, a good guy, this guy knows that we know, is often to dinner with us, then goes out with Matthew. He never wanted to stay the night with us and I can understand that, but me and my wife perhaps could really create problems. Here, Project, this email is for you, you made me understand many things and gave me the serenity and happiness of having a son like Matthew, who greets you, too.

A hug.
[Signed letter]

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - 11-19-2017, 02:51 AM - Forum: Gays and sex - No Replies

This long post contains an exchange of emails between me and a guy, a 22 year old student, on the issues of gay sexuality. My partner has authorized me to publish the texts anonymously (Mark is a fictitious name), what I do willingly, because it is a very serious correspondence that also helped me to reflect on many aspects of gay sexuality.

By Mark to Project - Saturday, March 6, 2010 22:16:55 +0100

Hello Project, I didn't get an email from you from about fifteen days ... are you okay? I wanted to know whether the considerations I expressed about your work were helping or not.
I saw on the website that you have responded to a guy about 20 y. o. who did not know if he was straight or gay. I could not help but notice, again renewed in this case, your strong dedication to the consideration of the masturbatory sexual component as an essential component of the self-identification as gay guy ... And, I tell you honestly ... I felt bad.
I felt bad because for a moment I had the impression that you could have some hesitation in the answer (now that is quite a bit that I don't receive your emails) just for the fact that I almost reversing your thinking, focused my attention on the emotional components rather than on the sexual ones (what seems the pivot on which you base your idea of sexual orientation) ...

Please tell me that I thought wrong. I care a lot to be able to build this Project with you, and with anyone else who wants to join our strength to build a place for people to be able to call it "home." In truth I tell you that I do this for the most part because I’m not belonging to anything in this world for me void of affection.
If you do not belong to any reality, to any person, and most do not even have a way to help others to feel part of something good (to have a "home" in which to return), you feel even more lost, weak, sad.

I do not know if you can understand what I mean. And a little I feel guilty because of all this so "noble" talking only for the salvation of my soul. But I am a human being limited as much as all the other men who tread this earth. I live for my desire to live and my happiness, even before that of others. I’m restless, I’m really afraid of what I might happen in the future.

I'm afraid of losing also that little feelings I live.
I'm afraid of not being able to financially support my family now that it's needed. I'm afraid that I'm never going to be happy with another guy (even at the level of deep friendship). I'm afraid of tears that are streaking my face now, afraid of all the horrors and weaknesses that I hide.

Forgive me for these long complaints, but I need to vent to someone and you're the only one with whom I can freely talk about these things. Forgive me if I use you. I did not want to write all these things, but in the end I did it to myself and to tell things clear and round.
Hello Project, please answer me. Even if you were mad at me for anything, because I appeared cold and arrogant in my technical speeches, or anything else, please answer me. Alone I cannot really take all this weight on my shoulders. Please.

By Project to Mark - Sunday, March 7, 2010 08:54:50 +0100

Hello Mark,
I’m not at all angry with you and would love to continue to work with you on the testing of the Project, it's just that now I'm swamped with work, that I have a lot of things to do that I cannot even begin and I have deadlines coming and there is no procrastination. The email I posted on the blog is not recent, I got it when I had time to devote to these things. And I'd love to have some more. To the question about the relation between masturbation and affection, frankly, I do not see why the two should not go together. Physical sexuality and emotions are not separate things, masturbation is a way to live affective strong couple’s feelings when you cannot really live them in other ways. When a guy falls in love with another guy, he begins to masturbate thinking about that guy, and this thing has exactly the value of a deep desire for intimacy with that guy. It's obvious that sexuality without feelings is meaningless and cannot be rewarding, a typical case is that of sex with strangers who you will never see again, but masturbation dedicated to a guy you love is a sign of deep involvement, sexual and affective together, towards that guy. I do not think at all that you're wrong to base things on the affective dimension, I rather think that masturbation is the expression of a deep drive, emotional and sexual together, towards another guy, somehow it’s a concrete affectivity that is also expressed at genital level. Frankly I do not think that what you say is substantially different from what I say.

I am very sorry instead of reading the last part of your email, because you seem quite discouraged and I do not want that to happen at all. I'm not gone, and I'm not going to disappear but I feel crushed by the enormous amount of work that I have to do and I cannot postpone. I will try to be more present, but, I repeat, I'm not going to disappear, anyway.
A strong hug and be courageous! You must go on!
See you soon, Mark!

By Mark to Project - Monday, 8 March 2010 00:11:58 +0100

Hello, I’m sorry for the discouragement that I have expressed in the email. It's just that lately there are so many bad things happening all at once and I feel that I often lack the inner strength to cope with all the chaos of my life. I'm sorry I made you truly feel the weight of my tears, but unfortunately I couldn't stand it anymore, and I felt the need of venting with someone who could understand me. Forgive me really, I did not even look so weak in your eyes, because I'm stronger now to face not only my problems but also those of others (or at least that's what I want). If by chance you ever need any help from me, or just want to take something out with someone, you can easily talk to me because I am here to listen. At least this is just to make it clear that this is what I really want. It's something that goes beyond the fact of lending you a hand just for "sense of duty".

As for the speech about masturbation I have to say that I agree with you that masturbation fantasizing of another guy is a sign of wanting to become more intimate with that guy, of wanting to love that guy. On the other hand, however, I perceive that something is wrong in this statement. It's a perception that I feel, it’s not a kind of certainty that I'm convinced of, anyway I'll try to explain. . . no doubt that a guy who likes another guy may live through the masturbation his affection for the guy he is in love with. But, besides the fact that I think that the masturbation comes from affection but affection never comes from masturbation, I want to expose my personal feeling: I could never masturbate thinking about the guy I love, because I feel that I would make him "dirty", or at least it would seem to me that I’m diminishing the affection and the respect I have for him because I imagine him in sexually exciting situations. It's like I’d put some partition wall to prevent sexuality to touch things I love, because I deify that things and do not want them "lose value" reduced to a sexual fantasies suitable to my simple physical satisfaction.

At the same time I see the idea of sex between people who love each other as something right and good, and I allow that starting from the affective feelings they could end up to step forward towards more explicit sexuality (but not lived to oneself through masturbation, like I said before).
I cannot describe my feelings better, but I think they are already quite understandable. What do you think? a) These ideas are just mine? b) Is there some truth in my speech? or c) I’m at some stage of rejection of sexuality or so d) Other?

Perhaps I don’t know how reality is experienced by other gay guys, or rather I am becoming more and more aware of that. And based on what I see, I would say that there are guys who quietly masturbate thinking about guys they like, in full awareness of all the sensations you feel to masturbate thinking of the loved guy. [Is it so or not?]

For me sex is just an extension of the affection I feel for a person, it is not mandatory, and it is by virtue of that that it seems to me to deflower the purity of the guy I love while I figure him in erotic situations. Such things are not necessary to convince me of the goodness of the affection I feel for that guy, but I also consider selfish in itself the idea of reducing at my mercy another guy (in the erotic fantasies of course) to reach orgasm.

I don’t know, what do you think about? Am I the only one who thinks so or there are many young people who think like me? If we were a lot of people thinking so, what element of truth to be learned may be found in our thinking? Or maybe in the end I'm just a person with a frigid sexuality? [Although I’m not so for various reasons that I don’t list here]
I await your response [maybe in a week. . . no, obviously I will not urge you to do things in a hurry. Simply I'd like to hear from you as soon as possible to be able to think about in turn and then * I think * that a week would be enough to think about what to say and find the time to tell me it] [I would also like to know what you think about what I said in my email regarding your future test on sexuality: whether you have criticisms to make, whether you share fully what I told you ... always within the limits of your possibilities of time and energy that you can spend, of course]

Hello again and thank you very much for the loving care that you give me. I hope for you that the problems at work are not too heavy. I would really be friendly closer to you.
See you soon.

By Project to Mark - Tuesday, 9 March 2010 06:55:46 +0100

Hello Mark,
first of all you do not have to apologize for anything, we do not need formalities, I'm sorry to hear you a little discomforted, I wish you could feel another way. Not only you don’t create problems of any kind but in the end this exchange of emails is a bit a pause in the midst of the absurdity of social life and work, a rare moment in which I can be what I’m and I can say what I think. For me these emails have the meaning of the safety valve and are things that I live like good moments to which I'd like to spend more time.

But let's get to the question of masturbation. It sounds crazy, but still in the twenty-first century we are on the subject of deeply rooted prejudices and conditioning. Physical sexuality today not only is lived without serenity but is loaded with many mythical meanings and is conditioned by many taboos. It is the legacy of centuries of Catholic culture, convictions and repression. There is little to do, the damage remains. Einstein said that it is easier to break an atom than a prejudice! The distinction affection/sex repeats the distinction soul/body: all that is noble comes from the soul (affectivity), all that is "dirty" comes from the body (sex). This suggests that sexuality intended not for procreative purposes is "dirty" and that a love interest ennobles the person you love, and a sexual interest degrades that person. In fact, the distinction between body and soul does not make sense, it is an indissoluble unity, and so it makes no sense the split between affectivity and sexuality. Beyond the divisions inherited from a bipolar culture (good/bad, soul/body) there is a unitary dimension to which should be given the right value. We agree about the fact that it makes no sense to think of a sexuality without affectivity, and inherited bipolar cultural values dig a rift between affectivity and sexuality, but in the same way does not make sense an affectivity without sexuality. When a guy falls in love with another guy, if between the two there is not and there cannot be any physical contact (typically the case of gay-straight relationships), this does not mean that the relationship is desexualized. Certainly it is not desexualized on the gay side, but, if sexuality is considered as a form of physical pleasantness rather than as a genital reaction, some sexual involvement also exists on the hetero side, this is the case of all forms of camaraderie, which are not read as something related to sex but as something related to friendship, but they probably have to do with sexuality much more than we think. So we can talk of relationships that do not have obvious sexual manifestations, but not of relationships that do not involve sexuality which is a ubiquitous reality that accompanies the life of an individual in all its manifestations.

Given the above, if making a mental operation we for a moment put in brackets preconceptions about physical sexuality, there is no reason to give it a negative value as it was something that can contaminate and destroy. The physical sexuality is one of the manifestations of affectivity and should not be demonized. There is still the idea that the sacrifice is good while the pleasure is bad, but it’s nonsense. Add that sexuality is too often suppressed in all its forms, and about masturbation, it resists the idea that it is a form of sexuality not emotional and not related to the couple’s life but almost exclusively selfish and for the individual pleasure. These concepts have no basis in reality.

Through the masturbation we tend to create mentally and physically the contact which in the reality cannot be created. This is certainly an activity that involves in an essential way the image of another person, which prefigures a sexual partnership or even tends to relive it in a less abstract form that that of pure memory. No one can be dirtied by the masturbation or by the fact of being part of masturbatory fantasies of another guy. In fact masturbation is a sign of deep both sexual and emotional involvement. You cannot deny that when a guy masturbates thinking of another guy at the base there is a strong emotional relationship, that is a dream of love (and sexuality) that is not reducible to pure physical outlet.

Mark, I do not want to add more. Try to stay calm, I tell you it by heart although I understand that it is difficult. A hug.

By Mark to Project - Tuesday, 9 March 2010 16:34:40 +0100

Hello Project,
first of all, before I forget it: I noticed that you're writing with the same character in the same size. . . it’s not necessary if you do not like. Not that I have sight problems or something it's just that I like writing more visible, especially if the emails I write or read are particularly articulated.

That being said I thank you for reminding me of the deep emotional need that sexuality sublimes, also through masturbation thinking about the guy you love. Not having had much experience of life in general I easily forget that sexuality is above all this. As you rightly say it is not true that the sacrifice can only be a good thing and pleasure on the contrary an evil thing. But I also wanted to let you know that my difficulty in masturbating in this sense does not come from a religious background [my religion does not meddle in my sexuality], but from my view of the moral values that briefly says "I do not want mix the physical to the spiritual for the simple fact that I want to think about that guy for what I really love of him, that is his soul. His body attracts me, it is true, but I feel in love with his spirit that for me is worth a lot more and I don't want to draw attention away from the soul to look at a (physical) beauty that is naturally lower than the first beauty."

Now, I imagine that you will easily emphasize that affection without sexuality is something lacking ... and certainly the reality is exactly as you say. But I come up with an anecdote which I consider much more convincing than my own version of the facts to clearly explain the question: Have you ever read (or better do you remember) the Divine Comedy? Something very strange happened in the great book of Dante Alighieri, I have never been able to explain, to give it a meaning, a dimension of justice true and irrefutable. I am referring to Dante's journey in the group of lustful persons. . . as we all know there dwell the souls of Paolo and Francesca. . . and I never understood why. I wondered why. They loved each other with a love pure and worthy to exist ... but then why? Even my teachers never gave me a good explanation about that. It's true that they were marked by the assassination of her husband, but the man was a horrible person and their souls still had to end up among the murders, right? But according to what Dante says I’m wrong. Even now 

I cannot understand why, but it happened to me a few years ago to see the reading of the passage by Roberto Benigni and he taught me that you shouldn’t look at the beauty of the body, but to that of the soul, the only true and eternal. If you remain watching enraptured for too long ephemeral things (here the beauty of the body), you end up losing sight of the true beauty that lies within all things: being too materialistic leads to not being able to reflect on the beauty and rarity of a rainbow (as actually happened), not to look beyond how things look; for example: if a person is physically bad for us, it doesn’t matter if has a beautiful soul. If we don’t refine our soul by looking to the true spirit of things, that person will remain for us always a bad person, although maybe it is the sweetest person in the world . . . and also in the case in which we know that that person is a sweet person, we don’t stop, however, to take into account only and exclusively the physical appearance. It may seem impossible, perhaps, but this is the reality: I personally know people who think this way. They do not have the slightest idea of what beauty is.

I also add one thing that I really happened: there was a time when I was constantly drawn to the physicality of the guys. ... and I invariably ended up not being able to see all the beautiful things that life offered me. All missed opportunities. All opportunities for growth as a person, as a human being with a valid level of humanity, relentlessly lost. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Let me underline I am not saying that sexuality is something "dirty" [despite the fact that I had mistakenly introduced this concept in my previous mail], but that I'm a guy who maybe also gives too much significance to affection reducing the sexual aspect.

More precisely, I masturbate easily on pornographic images I find on the net, but not thinking about the guy I’m attracted to: it is obvious that I do not feel affection towards the porn and then I have no problem to masturbate using the support they give me.

In conclusion of the speech I’m probably slightly sexually deviant (in the sense that it’s hard to restrain me to the normality and that my abnormalities arise from some difficulties between me and sex)

I close my speech leaving it open to all your considerations that will be warmly welcome.
I hope that in the future will be better also our problems for study, work and family.
Bye, see you soon.

By Project to Mark - Tuesday, 9 March 2010 18:09:14 +0100

Hello Mark,
well, I do not deny that reading your email I thought a lot about a form of sublimation of sexuality. This emphasis on the separation between the spiritual and the physical, and the idea of masturbation on pornography but not on the guys you're attracted to, even if not immediately, come from religious education, and are inevitably affected by that climate of which there are still heavy traces even in places where we least expect to find them. You attenuated expressions, in the sense that you do not speak any more of “dirty” but of losing sight of the spiritual, but the substance looks the same. It makes me think that you said that when you were more attracted to corporeality of guys you missed opportunities. Frankly I do not understand why a physical attraction should end up to turn away from the spiritual-emotional contact with a guy. As you can read in many parts of the forum, there are many guys who use the word “dirty” when they masturbate thinking about a guy, and the more that guy is important for them the more they live with guilt that they masturbate thinking of that guy. Although this thing appears to me at first sight as a consequence of a repressive form of education, I cannot deny that this mechanism is not at all uncommon. At the end pornography is something much more neutral and less addictive but I wonder if this way you do not end up removing all of the emotional dimension that masturbation should also have. I do not understand why physical sexuality cannot be a vehicle of emotions. At the end the use of pornography demeans masturbation because detaches it from real life and helps to create models of sexuality completely divorced from the experience and substantially devoid of emotions. Then when it comes to the couple’s life problems emerge connected right to the division between affectivity and sexuality. Living a couple’s life between two guys is to live in a perfectly integrated union of affectivity and sexuality. A guy needs an affective sexuality and being used to a non-emotional masturbation can create difficulties. It is clear that there may be many situations in which there can’t be any sexual outlet and in such situations perhaps the sublimation of physical sexuality and the confinement of masturbation to a purely technical activity on the basis of pornography may have very specific reasons, just because in those situations affectivity and sexuality must be distinguished.

Sexuality formed on a masturbation dependent on pornography has also another aspect that can create difficulties: it prevents the development of spontaneous sexuality, that is not conditioned by models. Because in the life of a couple the sexual satisfaction is linked precisely to the fact that we can fulfill at a greater or lesser extent fantasies already experienced during masturbation, it’s found that young people who have developed a spontaneous sexuality not affected by pornography, generally live couple’s sexuality with significantly higher levels of satisfaction, precisely because of their spontaneity. Between guys who grew up on pornography and those who never used pornography, sexual archetypes are quite different and this means that the couple’s incompatibility between a guy growing up on pornography and a gay stranger to pornography is much more pronounced. Reflecting more closely on the sublimation and the separation between affectivity and sexuality I come to the conclusion that, because it is a very real phenomenon and quite common, there must also be some very serious reasons that ultimately suggest a choice like that, at least in certain circumstances. Frankly, I'm inclined to think that it is the real impossibility of living the physical sexuality in a spontaneous way and free from taboos that leads to sublimation which essentially derives from the need not to dream of things that would not be possible to obtain. Probably things are more complex and deserve a more serious analysis from other points of view.

Mark, you never degrade. Your email has been pleasing me and I responded right away because I found the time to do it and especially because I was glad to do it. A hug.

By Mark to Project - Saturday, March 13, 2010 00:45:35 +0100

Hello Project,
I'm sorry because I’m going to send my email just now, I hope you will not be worried about me or whatever. . . However, I thought a little about the speech on masturbation / sublimation / emotions / sexuality. Meanwhile I answer to your statement "It makes me think that you said that when you were more attracted to corporeality of guys you missed opportunities. Frankly I do not understand why a physical attraction should end up to turn away from the spiritual-emotional contact with a guy." Maybe I was not very clear, but I did not mean by the words "lost opportunities" that I have removed some "spiritual-emotional contact with a guy". The opportunities that I missed are those that I explain later, that I had lost the ability to value the good things we have / are-around. I was no longer able to understand their beauty because I was completely taken by something that took away the time and the desire to feel the presence of the rest of the world around me.

But beyond this I wanted to add a point to your talk about the division between sexuality and emotions. I wanted to say that as you say you should do a more thorough investigation to discover the nature of this psychic phenomenon (especially because I think that this "choice" that many guys make is not really one but there are several different choices from guy to guy). Also reflecting on the things I've written I feel compelled to make explicit my thoughts: in all honesty I had a bad start by introducing the concept of "sin" related to affective masturbation ... because what I fill is really something larger, and I feel that a guy can get into trouble in front of this particular masturbation exactly because it "dirties" the other. In reality is that you cannot spontaneously masturbate thinking of the loved guy if the affection you feel towards the other guy has its origins in a genuine interest toward the personality of the other. In other words, "I have built a special relationship of friendship, trust and affection with the guy, and I realized to feel love for him. I want to live all the emotions I feel for him. My heart loves him desperately, I desperately want to love him and continue to love him indefinitely." Be madly in love is an action that involves not only the continuous love, but also the desire to love above all. This love is a tyrant, in the sense that claims for itself all the emotional space in the mind of the guy, and this because feeling affection for each other takes here the connotation of maximum realization of our emotional fulfillment. So we can deduce that: feel affection = maximum happiness, so masturbation is excluded because it is not loving the guy's spirit, but only want his body, this way we are diverting us from the aforementioned "greatest happiness". If in such a situation of "falling in love" you should realize that your body (or rather your subconscious? / Es? / Instinct? ) is not so much addressed to psychic satisfaction but, in turn, aims to find a vent, that's where the needs of the person resulting from "emotional thinking" (love the soul) collide with the needs of the "physical attraction" (love the body) and it comes out quite a conflict of priorities. Could this be an explanation, despite its "sordid" aspect? Consider that my hypothesis could be corroborated from the obvious annoyance factor toward a healthy emotional development represented by pornography and, more generally, by the commodification of sexual messages that is shown every day by the media and repeated by behaviors / attitudes / speeches made among the guys. This disorder can occur especially if you re-read the codes supplied to us by pornography and the media through the already secularized reading key of dualisms "good / bad" - "body / soul" - "purity - sin." [Ergo: if you mix the message of pseudo-religious moralistic nature with that of debasement of morality provided by the "dimension of pornography" added to that of the "gospel of popular culture, according to the media" you definitely get a lot of people who find it difficult to give the due weight, natural and cultural, to their sexuality, or rather I say, to sexuality itself as definition and as fact].

There's a sentence you wrote the meaning of which I have not understood: "It is clear that there may be many situations in which there can’t be any sexual outlet and in such situations perhaps the sublimation of physical sexuality and the confinement of masturbation to a purely technical activity on the basis of pornography may have very specific reasons, just because in those situations affectivity and sexuality must be distinguished."

You have not explained why "... affectivity and sexuality in those situations must be distinguished." Unless you tell me your point of view I cannot understand what you mean.

Greetings and thanks again for everything,

By Project to Mark - Sunday, March 14 2010 09:06:36 +0100

Hello Mark,
to be honest I noticed a delay in your reply and I was going to write but just opened the pc and found your mail and then, as usual, I'm answering late.
I start from the end. There’s a thing I notice in chat with guys: the sublimation of sexuality often accompanies falling in love with a straight guy. A gay guy falls in love with his straight friend, in the end, apart from the very remote hypothesis that the friend could discover himself gay, he knows that his friend is and will be straight and that with him he is allowed to live at most a good relationship in affective key (What really happens, sometimes), but he also knows that with his friend there can be no sexual contact. In these terms, it is almost obvious that the physical sexuality is put in brackets, but I’m talking about couple’s physical sexuality. Frankly, it seems almost impossible that a gay guy in love with his straight friend sublime even the sexuality of masturbation,

I would say that in general what is impossible to live at the level of couple can be lived through masturbation and the image of the friend will be the dominant sexual fantasy. Of course there is a dimension of frustration in all of this but it is accepted because of the fact that with his straight friend he creates a virtual physical relationship through masturbation.
You say that it’s impossible to masturbate thinking of a friend when the interest towards that friend is a genuine interest in his personality, well, frankly, it’s not what I see, because saying that "masturbation is excluded because it is not loving the guy's spirit, but only want his body" is a true removal / sublimation, dualism here comes again. Those conflicting priorities come just from thinking soul and body as two different things including the need to establish an order, but from what I see things generally follow other logics. Masturbate thinking about a friend and even more share with that friend a sexual intimacy is to feel a bond, a deep connection that cannot be reduced at all to the only physical involvement but also involves and very strongly the sphere of sentiments. I have seen many times gay guys deeply in love with a friend of theirs, which of course masturbated thinking about that friend or even had sex with that friend, who, when the opportunity came, have shown total dedication to that guy and there was nothing in the emotional level that was set aside or that has been lost because the friend was the subject of masturbation fantasies. I'm not inclined to think that physical sexuality may itself have a negative value but I think that I’d not say the negative value, but also the simple need to establish a hierarchy between sexuality and affection, as if they were separate things, is no more than the result of the culture of repression, which can be felt everywhere.

Think of the school, which is attended by guys aged 14 to 19 years, where teachers talk about everything from Greek tragedy to the theorems of mathematics, well in high school teachers never talk seriously about sexuality, which is a contradiction, and even less talk about masturbation, as if it was something that simply doesn’t exist, while these things are objectively fundamental for the guys. It is clear that those who grow up with the idea that about some things it’s impossible to speak except in jokes, end up with the idea that the feelings and physical sexuality are different things but in reality it is not so, I'll take an example, why do you think people fall in love so deep, with real forms of suffering and addiction, when they are young, 20/30 y. o. and these things do not happen when they are 50/60 y. o., or if happen, happen so much more bland? The answer lies in the fact that the physical and hormonal substrates are different and in the fact that for a young man falling in love depends largely on his sexuality that is in his full power, sexuality and emotional entanglements follow the same curve over the years because are substantially the same thing.

Then there is the problem of religion, another powerful boost to dualism and the removal of physical sexuality, which, however, now has a weight not very high in a very significant percentage of cases.

The real core issue of sex education is that it is in practice totally entrusted to pornography, and this is clearly demonstrated by surveys of Gay Project, this fact means that the word sex will become almost synonymous with pornography. For a twenty year old guy today, thinking about an affective sexuality is less simple than in the past because for him the sex has little to do with friendship and love, and is strongly conditioned by pornography.

There are gay movies, not pornographic, with explicit sex scenes framed in a deeply emotional story truly engaging, these films are experienced by gay guys with deep emotion because guys see the emotional value of sexuality. The problem of pornography is not the fact of showing explicit sex scenes but the fact of showing “only” explicit sex scenes, as if the sexual intercourse between two people was just that. I wrote gay novels in which there are the lives of gay men, and where of course there is also room for physical sexuality among gay men because physical sexuality is a normal part of life. Well, of those novels I have published online several chapters, with cuts for reasons related to the fact that I have published them on a website without restrictions, that is open to everyone, in any case, the physical sexuality is strongly present. The guys who have read these chapters sent me emails to tell me beautiful things because they have read a love story, something they can dream about, which also involved physical sexuality, but a true love story, that has put "together" physical sexuality and feelings.

A hug Mark. See you soon.

By Mark to Project - Sunday, March 14, 2010 22:19:37 +0100

But in fact, I'm sorry if I insist, Project, what I was trying to say in the first email is just that the dualisms "soul - body", "sex [whose idea is borrowed from pornography [and that is seen as dirty] - love [pure, so full of feeling that makes us feel good about themselves and with each other]" are concepts really very popular. The destructive power they have on the emotional lives of many guys is disarming and can easily lead people to feel uncomfortable where it should not happen.

I have set the first case of a guy who likes another guy and considers masturbating on him as something "dirty" ... and I think that goes for all the guys, if you love a guy you feel a certain degree of physical attraction to him, but at the same time if you feel that masturbating thinking about him is "dirty" then you suppress this desire. . . But inevitably it happens that the part of you that gets excited thinking about him begins to act against your conscious will of repression of sexuality. And this is the "conflict of priorities" that I mentioned before: the conscious yourself (as Freud would say the EGO) and the subconscious yourself (to quote Freud, the ES) fight each other ... and the EGO will come out easily defeated in this war if para-moralistic conditionings derived from SUPER-EGO (a term coined also by Freud) meddle in the Battle. And this is what I mentioned earlier.

As for my personal situation, I tell you that I could not masturbate thinking about the guy I love because I cannot give the masturbation those affective meanings you underline so strongly. The truth is that you say that masturbation "should" have an affective origin, but unfortunately it happens that is not experienced this way by people, including myself.
I masturbate in my solitude, alone, because of my personal desire for sexual satisfaction. No one is there with me when I do it, and I never developed the desire to live that moment with someone else to give each other pleasure through mutual masturbation.

The core issue is that pornography is my only strong reference model to sexuality. But also the lack of positive experience with a guy in terms of living masturbation with him and with affection makes me feel impossible to masturbate thinking of another guy, what I consider "empty in itself", I would almost say "dirty" (because if you empty the practice of masturbation of affective values, the only thing you do when you masturbate becomes exploit the thought you have of that guy whom you love for your pleasure only selfish).

I repeat and I remind you that I understand your logical discourse on the fact that masturbating thinking of a guy you love is a sign of affection towards him. I understand that at the level of discourse, but for the reasons mentioned above it is impossible for me to live this situation. I am not able to feel anything that can lead me to affective masturbation (because I do not have a single affective memory associated with that person at the level of intimacy), but I aim only to my sexual satisfaction (because for me masturbation has only this meaning).

In addition, there is one thing that left me badly and I do not agree: you say that love is felt most powerfully by young 20/30 y. o. than in the 50s for natural reasons due to hormonal changes ... I'm sorry, but I cannot share this idea with you. I do not doubt the fact that young gay men are more active on the sentimental level because of hormonal factors, but I do not feel right to give Mother Nature all this weight on less passionate loving ability in more mature men. What is the value of the various psychological and / or social conditionings? 

For example the fact that men aged 50 or more may have gained a greater experience in this field that brought them to diminish the need of "falling in love" (because they have lived longer and have done a lot of bad experiences, or even only so many experiences and so have come to "be bored of love"), and I say instead that yes maybe young adults are more passionate, but perhaps adults are more aware of the meaning of "loving and be loved", and that depends on the person's inner experience and how the person acts and reacts during life? [Trivial example: the fact of being forever young even at advanced ages] ... You have narrowed the individual capacity of falling in love to a mere function of the greater or lesser presence of hormonal storms in the individual ... Your exact words: " sexuality and emotional entanglements follow the same curve over the years because are substantially the same thing " ... Don’t you think this statement is excessive?

Sorry if I was a bit vehement in saying things, but the ideas came to my mind like a torrent. Think well on some of these, in particular those relating to the destruction and lack of emotional values that the pornography leads to and those about the fact that avoiding strong affective experiences can trigger mechanisms for "blaming the masturbation of being mere act of self-fulfillment." I think it is very important to analyze these points in order to try to understand the patterns of affectivity and sexuality of gays, both young and mature.

A big hug to you too,

By Mark to Project - Monday, March 15, 2010 18:49:28 +0100

And just because I wrote my ideas without putting them in order and without meditating on them step by step, reading the mail, I noticed that I wrote some things badly ...

1) Where I say that EGO is easily defeated I mean that the tensions that ES and SUPER-EGO create, between each other, contrasting tensions because the "moralistic reasons" of the second attempt to repress the impulses of the first, can lead the EGO, that is the guy with his impulses, to feel pain because he is behaving "so dirty".
In other words, being divided between the desire to love freely (which includes masturbation) and the dualistic conception of "pure – unclean” is really overwhelming. It’s a thing that at opposite ends can lead to painfully stretch the psycho-sexual balance of a guy, or can be resolved more often in denying masturbation through moralism. In any case, the two are both wrong and deeply unfair.

2) When I say "masturbation is not lived in affective sense by people" it’s obviously a very big generalization. I am convinced that many people are able to feel that little bit more in this particular type of auto-eroticism.

But this does not diminish my belief that many other gay guys like me find rather serious difficulties in this regard.
Well, I just had to send the mail with these corrections ... no, mostly because rereading what I had written before I said to myself "but if someone reads these things can consider me madman!"

Is it okay to express your point of view, of course, but surely we must be moderate and thoughtful in doing so. Be fundamentalists does not lead to anything, except perhaps if you are absolutely right (but perhaps even in those rare cases where you are absolutely right it is better to be moderate, for many other reasons)
Okay, I greet you from again. [And if you find other things that you consider outside the lines, wrong, or just have criticisms of various kinds, never hesitate to let me know, please. I want to maintain a relationship as more honest and productive as possible with you]

By Project to Mark - Tuesday, 16 March 2010 09:06:36 +0100

Hello Mark,
I begin by telling you one thing. This exchange of emails is making me think about a lot of things I had not considered and about many that I had taken for granted. I must say that the level of analysis and comparison is extremely serious and eventually helps, and not a little, to understand things better. For this reason, I had thought that these e-mails, maybe suitably revised so as not to put absolutely at risk the privacy, could be published because they could really help many guys to understand more deeply the meaning and complexity of sexuality. I'd like to know what you think about. Of course, If you think for any reason it is not appropriate, of course emails will remain private.

As to your last email, I start from the end. Through Gay Project I happened to speak with many people of many different ages, but the vast majority were between 18/20 and 30 y. o.. If you look at the people who fill out and submit the form of the online interview on gay sexuality you can see that the average age is 24.76 years. People over 35 are few, the over forties are rare and I knew only three people over the age of fifty, in over three years of operation of "Gay Project". Explain these data with the fact that more mature people are not used to using the internet is misleading. Basically the interest in sexuality and also in the affective dimension decreases with age. I could say that the more time passes the more decreases the interest in building an emotional and sexual life with another person. 

A gay man aged 40-45 years has lost in large part his enthusiasm and begins to grow in him the belief that in the end the loneliness, but we should say being single, it's not something so tremendous, and that building stories solely to overcome loneliness is something to avoid. Of course on the evolution of emotional and sexual history of people weigh very much personal experiences and also the idea that in the end undermine the individual traditional way of life to try to build a little forcedly a story that may in fact appear like another complication, maybe not worth it. The question is similar to the problem of the classic " You need to find settlement" that mothers say to straight guys who are not really inclined to marriage. 

At a certain age, the building of a relationship no longer has a really deep emotional and sexual motivation but is designed to meet abstract and rational and much less instinctual motivations, both emotionally and physically. Beyond a certain age, couples are essentially forms of mutual assistance, that have a dignity, all right, but with sexuality and sexual emotions have little to do. Not that I want to belittle the affective dimension that can be experienced when you are aged 50 years or more but it’s objectively different from that of a guy aged twenty. A twenty-something living in love feels deep feelings of enthusiasm and even shocking deprivations, for him sexual dimension is really fundamental to the point that imagine to deprive a guy aged twenty of a sexual dimension, even livable individually through the masturbation, would mean impose on him a heavy sacrifice. For a man over fifties it’s certainly not the same thing, sexuality gradually loses weight with the passing of years to the point that chastity is not even a sacrifice, given that in fact the drives to hold are very milder. 

A love story between two men fifty y. o. has little to do with an apparently similar story between two guys in their twenties. There is not only a different physical sexuality, but as a result of a different way of living physical sexuality, much more sporadic and far less compelling, even affection somehow degrades and is replaced by other values, most worthy, however, such as fidelity and mutual respect in a dimension of conservative rather than creative affectivity. A twenty y. o. who falls in love creates, begins an affair, experiments, compares, experiences, grows, a 50 y. o. must first put aside the habits, needs to adapt to upset at least a little daily rhythms of his life and it is not absolutely easy, the weight of established ways of life remains as a substrate beyond the emotional story that is built.

I began to write this e-mail before receiving your clarification in the night of 15, and even before receiving it the things you've written about masturbation seemed to me not only acceptable but definitely realistic. In fact, the emotional masturbation is a corollary of falling in love and its meaning is understandable only if you have experienced it directly. The absence of deep emotional experiences related to masturbation and the conditioning coming from pornography clearly removes from the masturbation its affective value as an experience that even if physically individual is at least mentally affective and related to the couples’ life. Gay couples, when they are forced to a temporary separation continue the couple's relationship living it through masturbation that is useful to strengthen and not to weaken the sexual relationship of the couple. In a gay couple mutual masturbation is a normal part of sexual contact and also in this way strengthens the sense of masturbation as a couple’s experience, this time related to the couple’s relationship also physically. In these situations it is not the climax that matters but sharing a profound intimacy even sexually, having no more secrets for each other also physically. It is clear that so masturbation makes a sense eminently affective and this is what allows guys to live it as a real sexual experience, both physical and emotional.

According to the statistics, the correlation between emotional satisfaction and sexual satisfaction in masturbation is largely evident. The more intense is the level of emotional involvement in masturbation the greater is the satisfaction drawn from it at sexual level. In the absence of a genuine affective participation masturbation is not focused on a real guy, with his physique but also with his emotions, but on pornography. It is basically just the spread of pornographic model, which replaces the spontaneous and emotional masturbatory fantasies, which reduces the effect of masturbation to pure physical individual outlet.
A hug and see you soon.

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - 11-18-2017, 11:31 AM - Forum: Gays and sex - No Replies

This post is dedicated to analyze the connection between play and sexuality and aims to highlight the different meanings of sexual play in relation to sexual orientation of the people involved.

A large number of guys, if not all, sooner or later take part in or attend to episodes of play with a more or less evident sexual background, that is episodes of play which involve more or less overtly sexual content or content concerning nudity.

The play usually begins with only the verbal content, for example playing "truth or dare" when it comes to “truth phase” about sexual content, then passing through physical contact not specifically genital, as in the wrestling for fun, that, for example, when you are on the beach and wrestle with only the swimsuit on, involves a very direct physical contact, sometimes also embarrassing, and can also end up with sexually explicit play that also includes the possibility of touching the genitals, or implicates that one of the participants is expected to remain naked at the end of the play (strip poker).

The sexual play can be simple, that is it can arise without any explicit sexual purposes, but can also be programmed precisely in order to create a sexual involvement. In some cases, the sexual play verges on the edge of violence, when it comes to group play imposed on an unwilling victim. This is the case of "pantsing/de-pantsing", a play that sometimes involves also behaviors of sexual violence and is practiced in schools or universities against freshmen or in military environments. The "pantsing" usually consists in yanking down quickly and unexpectedly the underwear of a guy in order to leave him exposed in front of everyone, but sometimes the “pantsing” means stripping a guy in group, obviously against his will, blocking him and preventing him from defending himself, often the others may touch the genitals of the victim even if in a playful way.

The violent meaning of this play is considerably reduced because the rite is performed as if it was a joke and those who have been “pantsed” can change role the next time. It should be emphasized that this sexual play is characteristic of environments dominated by men (male barracks and classrooms). Today, with the obligation of mixed classes (male and female together) and also of mixed teams of physical education, the “pantsing” has almost gone and only remains in college dorms only for guys.

Among the games that are on the border between play and sexuality there is the tickling, that starts trivially as a play but allows two guys to familiarize with themselves, with mutual physicality and especially lowers the threshold of the defenses and makes the behavior less controlled. When the laugh becomes uncontrollable, physical contact is accepted in a dimension of play and fun. It is not unlikely that a gay guy gats a hard on being in a similar situation, which doesn't happen just as easily not even in explicit sexual contexts.

The laugh is the Trojan horse of sexuality that allows a guy to accept in this way, what explicitly he would not accept. Through the tickling and through sexual play often occur early signs of gay sexuality in young people who have been deemed always straight.

However, participate in sexual games between persons of the same sex does not mean being gay. In an all guys class “pantsing” was a typical straight play. I emphasize that it is not the participating in the game that determines sexual orientation but, according to sexual orientation, participation in sexual play is experienced in different ways. The straight guys, participating in a sexual play with friends of the same sex, see it as a game, as the most uninhibited game, but not as a sexual activity, on the contrary gay guys, participating in a same sex sexual play, consider it precisely as a sexual activity.

The difference in the way to participate is reflected in the fact that a straight guy who is involved in a sexual play with other guys will not load the memory of that episode with sexual meanings, what on the contrary a gay guy will certainly do. The gay guy will transform the memory of that episode, which for him is clearly a sexual experience, into a strong masturbatory fantasy and that episode will be printed indelibly in his mind.

The difference in experiencing the participation in the sexual game between a straight guy and a gay guy can create big problems in the event that the gay guy falls in love with the straight one and between the two guys the atmosphere is so uninhibited to actually allow sexual plays, what is quite common.

Each of the two guys projects his own personal view of the sexual play on the other guy, so the straight guy thinks that for his friend the sexual game is just a game with no real sexual significance, therefore feels uninhibited because assumes that the other guy is also straight. The gay guy sees the participation in sexual plays by his straight friend as if it was a real gay sexual activity and begins to fantasize about the hypothesis that his friend is not really straight but in reality is a latent gay guy who sooner or later will realize that he is really gay because "if a guy participates in sexual activities with another guy clearly cannot be straight."

Understandably these types of projections can create sexual expectations, hopes and, later, bitter disappointments. Sexual play is often used by gay men, consciously or unconsciously, as an attempt to involve their friends in a sexual dimension. For a gay guy is actually very difficult to understand that a straight guy is going through a sexual play in a completely different way. In this sense, try to involve a friend in a sexual play is definitely not a sensible system to verify his possible being gay. To find out if a guy is really gay there is only one way, that is, talk to him explicitly, what is often very difficult, if not impossible. To use various substitutes of the explicit direct speech means to choose unreliable methods.

A common feature of sexual games in which a gay guy tries to involve his friend to test his homosexuality or to lead him to homosexuality (what is absolutely meaningless because or you're gay or you're not), is the “graduality” which is a typical characteristic of not spontaneous but planned sexual play. In this situation, a gay guy who does not know the sexual orientation of his partner tries to involve him in forms of sexual play in which the sexual dimension is only just visible, if the participatory response of his friend is spontaneous, after a while the gay guy experiments a play in which sexual contents are more explicit, only if also in this case the participation of the friend is spontaneous it becomes possible to program another step towards an even more explicit sexuality.

From the point of view of the gay guy, when his friend has accepted an openly sexual play, doing so he has clearly shown his homosexuality. This strategy of small steps moves ever forward the limit that separates the play from sexuality.

There are rare cases of straight guys who are willing even to be masturbated by their friends supposed to be straight. Such a thing is automatically interpreted by a gay guy as a manifested admission of homosexuality on the part of his friend. This conclusion derives from an assumption, namely, that what matters to identify a gay guy are external behaviors, i. e. that there are "behaviors" typically gay that a straight guy would never put into practice. In fact, experience shows that to identify a gay guy you must know his own interpretation of his own behaviors and of those of others. In other words, it is not the behavior itself that defines a gay guy but the interpretations that he gives of that behavior.

Print this item

Posted by: gayprojectforum - 11-17-2017, 02:11 AM - Forum: Gays and religion - No Replies

I got a comment on the post GAY FRIENDSHIP AND GAY LOVE VIA CHAT like follows:

“What matters is the source of your wisdom, knowledge and understanding. Man must not lean unto his own understanding but in all his ways, his comings and goings, acknowledge HIM and HE will direct your path, and he is THE CREATOR OF THIS UNIVERSE. God despises homosexuality. It’s sickening and disgusting. Satan bought that sin into the world. He came to kill, maim, and destroy mankind. You have free will. You have a choice. Go to the BIBLE it’s the true source and the road map to everlasting LIFE. SATAN IS A DECEIVER.....Peace and Light.....”

Of course everyone is free to believe what in his eyes looks better, but the use of judging reality on the basis of the Bible led to the Inquisition, to the torture and to the  burning at the stake those who, following their conscience, think differently.

Already in the statutes of the city of Bologna, in 1259, citizens were urged to denounce the sodomites and the sodomites themselves were punished with exile, while those who offered hospitality to homosexuals in their home where punished with death.

Throughout the thirteenth century, laws promulgated in Germany, France and Switzerland punish homosexuals condemning them to the stake. In 1277, in Basel, Emperor Rudolph does burn a homosexual at the stake, and this practice is also attested in some regions of France. In 1293, in Italy is attested the first sentence to the stake against a homosexual, when Charles II of Anjou does impale and burn at the stake the Count of Acerra, accused of sodomy, although the reasons underlying were purely political in nature.

In Siena the constitution condemned homosexuals surprised to commit acts “against nature” to a fine of 300 pounds, and to the hanging by the genitals "in the event of non-payment."

The Papal State punished pimps, who offered guys for money, with lashes and perpetual exile, while sodomites were burned at the stake.

Throughout the fourteenth century, the death penalty through the stake is adopted throughout Italy, and will be maintained in the fifteenth century. In Milan under the Sforza, people who denounced homosexuals were rewarded with money. In Venice in the early fifteenth century a scandal that involved in questions related to sodomy the highest offices of the “Serenissima Republic” caused a violent repression of homosexuality.

A special case is the Florentine republic, where until 1400 homosexuals were not punished with the stake, but with monetary fines joined with the "castration" and the cutting of the right hand if the offender was relapsed. However, they were burned at the stake foreigners who committed sodomitical acts during their passage in the Florentine territory. In 1430, following an unpleasant event that shook public opinion, even the law of Florence became more severe, with higher fines but burning at the stake was only required in case of recidivism.

I don’t know if these are ways to oppose against the work of Satan and comply with God's will, frankly, I think these things are horrendous crimes of homophobia that have been masked under the guise of law, as unfortunately happens in some countries also today.

What is certain is that religions have in all this a great responsibility because contributed to incite hatred against homosexuals and continue to do so. Saints such as St. Peter Damian and theologians as the Bishop of Worms Burchard have supported and encouraged with their attitude, anticipating the Inquisition, hatred against homosexuals. I invite you to read an article of this blog dedicated to Liber Gomorrhianus of St. Peter Damian.

I quote here below the passages more interesting for Homosexual Persons of the Message of Benedict XVI for the World Day of Peace XLVI, 1 January 2013, on the theme: "Blessed are the peacemakers."

“Even the natural structure of marriage must be recognized and promoted as a union between a man and a woman, compared to attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role.
These principles are not truths of faith, or are just a tap of the right to religious freedom. They are inscribed in human nature itself, identified with reason, and therefore they are common to all mankind. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, regardless of their religious affiliation. Such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace.”

After reading such statements it is natural to wonder if freedom itself constitutes "an offense against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice and peace."

But the positions radically discriminatory against homosexuality are frequent, I quote just an example. In late 2008, the Holy See has taken a position strongly opposed to the project of a universal decriminalization of homosexuality presented at the UN on the initiative of the French Presidency of the European Union, and accepted by all 27 European Union countries. According to the Holy See it is legitimate that homosexuality is prosecuted as a crime.

But the discriminatory attitude doesn’t belong exclusively to the Catholic Church. The Chief Rabbi of France argued that the recognition of gay couples is "at the expense of the public interest and for the benefit of a tiny minority." The speech of the Chief Rabbi was widely quoted in “Osservatore Romano” (the newspaper of the Holy See) and also the Pope quoted some excerpts of that speech.
For those who think that freedom and equality in a moral dimension but absolutely secular and independent of revealed truths of any kind, are the foundation of any civil society, the idea that someone can promote a crusade against the recognition of the rights of others is unacceptable.

Among other things, the speech of the Pope and that of Chief Rabbi are not limited to the adoption but aim immediately, in Italy and in France, to avoid the legal recognition of same-sex couples, which is really inexcusable outside a confessional logic.

At the base of the speeches of the Chief Rabbi and of the Pope there is the assumption that the Bible is the foundation of anthropology, that the world is not as it really is, but as it is described in the Bible and that the world should conform to what the Bible says, statements that to a layman are absolutely immoral.

To say that gay rights are "at the expense of the public interest and for the benefit of a tiny minority" is completely gratuitous, because homosexuality is an anthropological absolutely objective and undeniable reality (gays exist even if someone does not like them and are not a tiny minority) and if someone consider gays as a "tiny minority" he probably doesn't even know exactly what he is talking about and simply repeats dogmatically what the Bible says as if the Bible and not the reality was the basis of anthropology and of civilized life.

Print this item