Homoromantic but not exactly homosexual?

  • Thread starter Thread starter strngrnrth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matariel said:
I think I can relate to the OP. Although this may be unusual for most people on this forum, my best friend and I (both male) who happens to be my 2nd cousin often do things that most people would lead to conclude that we must be homosexually-oriented. I know this sounds weird to most people, but when we’re among friends and family (certainly not in public) we often show signs of affection, and even kiss every now and then. We sleep together, side by side, in the same bed whenever we’re on a trip. We often say “I love you” and show a lot more physical contact than most males in our culture. We even lay on each other when watching movies together or TV. We did this even when he was going out with a girlfriend, as I did.

I remember reading that this was a standard thing in medieval Europe, and that often male aristocrat bachelors would choose a “life friend” that they basically make a pact of friendship, much more deeper than regular male-to-male friendship. But it wasn’t sinful.

But it was never considered sinful, and I think I recall that David and Jonathan were as such, as well as some saints.
Click to expand...
I can certainly relate to what you’re talking about.
 
There’s nothing inherently sinful in having homosexual romantic attractions and acting casually on them (ie; going to the movies) might be ok but serious actions are inviting one’s willpower to breakdown.
 
One of the great tragedies of homosexual liberation has been the toll taken on same sex friendships.

Physical closeness has never been easy for men, and now that homosexuality is so much ‘on the radar screen’, its even harder.

I think it is possible to love intensely and deeply without there having to be a sexual or romantic component, though perhaps a more precise definition of ‘romantic’ would have to be stipulated before we could say for certain.

It seems to me that physical consumation is always the goal of ‘romance’. A person who indulges emotionally in a ‘romantic’ relationship with a specific intention to remain chaste is making their lives harder.

It’s like going to a restraunt and ordering a fantastic dinner consisting of every dish your heart desires, then just staring at the table, without so much as tasting a bite of it…
 
Sam Maloney your reply was brillant and so very true. I can see it here in India which has no gay culture. True friendships exist among students that would be frowned upon in a gay orientated society.
 
strngrnrth said:
So, in the asexual/aromantic world apparently there are many men, women and young people who consider themselves asexual but homoromantic (in or wanting a romantic-type relationship with someone of the same sex). If romanc without the possibility of marriage and sex is OK (is it? Is there an official Church stance on that? Still confused). There would be no sex involved. I know homosexual acts are wrong. But what about a virginal romance? Is that a sin as well? This would be for people who do not experience sexual attractions, so I don’t see how it could be lustful. Is it disordered? Is it just like a friendship? I mean, dating, Valentines, pet names, keeping house, even holdinghands, maybe a peck on the forehead or something after work, I don’t know.That would be all. This is serious to me because it helps me figure out what sexual morality is actually based on and what that means to the rest of life. I’m not in one of these relationships myself. Aside from scandal, is it wrong?
I read Theology of the body kind of fast a while ago but I don’t remember everything and I guess I really don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
It’s still based on lust, and given to constant temptation. I think it should be avoided.
 
KingAlfred said:
It’s still based on lust, and given to constant temptation. I think it should be avoided.
Click to expand...
If they are asexual, that means they’re not attracted to anybody- there is no “constant temptation” there. These types of relationships simply involve acting on the natural desire for companionship. Both sexes can relate to that, and both sexes should have a desire for friendship from both men and women.

Asexuality is disordered, as is homosexuality, and as are other sexual disorders. Our sexuality helps us relate to other men and women- and to allow them to relate to us. It is what gives us our instinctive knowledge of the God-given roles of men and women. When our sexuality is disordered or absent, things become a lot more complicated.
 
m134e5 said:
If they are asexual, that means they’re not attracted to anybody- there is no “constant temptation” there. These types of relationships simply involve acting on the natural desire for companionship. Both sexes can relate to that, and both sexes should have a desire for friendship from both men and women.

Asexuality is disordered, as is homosexuality, and as are other sexual disorders. Our sexuality helps us relate to other men and women- and to allow them to relate to us. It is what gives us our instinctive knowledge of the God-given roles of men and women. When our sexuality is disordered or absent, things become a lot more complicated.
Click to expand...
That’s not how I interpret, “*Homoromantic *but not exactly homosexual?”
 
I thought that only the act of sodomy was mentioned in the Bible. I have never heard of any mention of relationships between same sex individuals being wrong or right in the Bible.

Obviously if there is sexual attraction then there is lust and it follows from there in being sinful, but here we are talking about no lust and no sex. What do we have left? Well I guess it depends on how you define love. For example:

In Psychology Sternberg suggests 3 componants of LOVE:
PASSION (sexual desire)
INTIMACY (confiding & sharing feelings)
COMMITMENT (intention to maintain relationship)

non-love (none of the three components present), *
infatuated love* (passion only), *
liking/friendship* (intimacy only), *
empty love* (commitment only),
romantic love (passion and intimacy), *
companionate love*** (intimacy and commitment), **
fatuous love (passion and commitment),
consummate love (passion, intimacy, and commitment)

So maybe this then is not a sin because it is a type of love that we do not understand. We in Western society tend to class a whole load of things into homeosexuality that maybe should not be there. This love is a friendship, but then it is more, it is companionship. It has no sexual/passion but is a cherishable type of love, just a little missunderstood. The two individuals involved may also missunderstand this because of the way that society talks about homeosexuality: this has been explained allready.

I have kissed my friends, held hands, sent valentines cards to show that someone cares, and lived in the same house as them. This in no way would mean that I was gay but modern society may have a different idea, but I myself do not bother too much with what society says, I mean I would not be Catholic if I did.

I think if this is the type of love (somewhere in between married love and basic friendship) that these too people have with each other, then it should be cherished.
 
As for attraction this is also easily missinterpreted. Think about it you see someone in a crowd of people, why is it that would make me sit next to the younger women rather than the skin headed big older male? Maybe there is something about that women that attracts me to talk to her rather than the male. She seems less scary maybe? This is still attraction. A person with a smile or with similar clothes, hair or just a friendly (attractive) looking face may be more attractive to approach rather than a really big scary, unwashed, disgusting (unattractive) looking person.

Friendship still makes use of attraction, it is however not n a sexual basis and this is what may be misstaken. To be misstaken in this is not a sin, to take it so far as to sex without marriage is.
 
m134e5 said:
Asexuality is disordered, as is homosexuality, and as are other sexual disorders. Our sexuality helps us relate to other men and women- and to allow them to relate to us. It is what gives us our instinctive knowledge of the God-given roles of men and women. When our sexuality is disordered or absent, things become a lot more complicated.
Click to expand...
In a society where people seem to act more like bonobo chimps than humans, maybe God allowed asexuality to emerge as a means to keep things balanced.
 
When I visited the Philippines with my wife, I often saw teen-age males hold each others’ hands. I thought this was strange, and I asked my wife about it. She said that Filipinos are a very affectionate people, and that I shouldn’t give it a second thought. One day, I was out with my brother-in-law taking in the sights. We had to cross the street, he gently took my hand (not my forearm, but my hand) and did not let go until we crossed the street (crossing the street in the Philippines reminds me of that old video game where a frog crosses traffic and sometimes goes SPLAT 😃 ). It didn’t bother me one bit. I thought about it afterwards and understood that it was a sign of how close he felt to me.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
strngrnrth said:
So, in the asexual/aromantic world apparently there are many men, women and young people who consider themselves asexual but homoromantic (in or wanting a romantic-type relationship with someone of the same sex). If romanc without the possibility of marriage and sex is OK (is it? Is there an official Church stance on that? Still confused). There would be no sex involved. I know homosexual acts are wrong. But what about a virginal romance? Is that a sin as well? This would be for people who do not experience sexual attractions, so I don’t see how it could be lustful. Is it disordered? Is it just like a friendship? I mean, dating, Valentines, pet names, keeping house, even holdinghands, maybe a peck on the forehead or something after work, I don’t know.That would be all. This is serious to me because it helps me figure out what sexual morality is actually based on and what that means to the rest of life. I’m not in one of these relationships myself. Aside from scandal, is it wrong?
I read Theology of the body kind of fast a while ago but I don’t remember everything and I guess I really don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
It seems to me to be seriously disordered, What you are describing is what a man and woman experience and not what same sex people even if they were best friends would expect to experience. This is seriously a pre- homosexual if not an active homosexual relationship.
 
Asexuality is not necessarily disordered. It may be a gift from God so that the person can follow their vocation as an ordained religious more easily.
 
I have never even heard of any such thing. It is so odd what people are inventing these days.

That said, I don’t think Lily and Mike and some others are actually understanding the issue at all as explained by the OP. You are not comprehending the “asexual” aspect of the relationship. You are confusing “asexual” with “chaste”. They are not equivalent. A person who is asexual is not engaging in “pre-sexual” behavior, or foreplay to sex, when they relate to others in a “romantic/erotic” manner.

Asexual persons have no desire to engage in physical, sexual realtionships and no lust for a flesh-based relationship. They may sometimes though (as it appears from the topic) have a desire for an affectionate partnership that has an element of *infatuation. *

I think that’s what it is, and I really don’t know what to say about whether it is ‘sinful’, but it seems to be without question disordered. I think these must be people with deep wounds to their identity, so that their core capacity to enter intimate relationships has been developmentally arrested. They are intimately relating from a much younger life stage. Unlike homosexuals, who are relating from the developmental stage that begins with puberty, they seem to be relating from a combination of other ages. Sounds like these relationships are similar to the feelings elementary-school age children have for their best friends.
 
Fran65 said:
Asexuality is not necessarily disordered. It may be a gift from God so that the person can follow their vocation as an ordained religious more easily.
Click to expand...
Mm, doesn’t Christ Himself say something about people who are born as eunuchs and others who became that way? This might be what He was referring to…
 
Asexuality is a VERY rare condition (the two famous ones that come right to mind are Jorge Luis Borges,who had wonderful, close relationships with people of both sexes, but was just not a lustful guy…and Nikola Tesla, a weird’un to be sure, but as far as anyone can tell,just wasn’t interested in the whole thing, even though he was a stone knockout, in terms of looks! Both were utter geniuses, too.)

Why should we fear romance? Sex may lead to romance, but not necessarily the other way round. Ideally, it’s a slow process through friendship, companionship, and if the parties are so inclined, consummation. What a wonderful world that would be, sigh. 🙂

I myself have been very fortunate in these matters, and hope for the best for everyone.
 
Also remember your scripture. “The greatest of these is Love.”

I may not have the Faith ability, but I strive with every ounce of my being to love and be charitable. No human is my judge and I know it, but I constantly work to be worthy of humankind. Grant me charity, I beg you. You will not regret it, in this life, or in whatever may come after. Both your scripture,and sheer goodwill affirm such.
 
umm … im pretty sure that the cannon says something about homosexuality, about not giving into your sexual attraction towards people of the same sex, and thats all it says it doesn’t say anything about romantic attraction although i would expect them to still be against acting on your romantic attraction towards people of the same sex. but asexuals dont experience sexual attraction so according to the church a homoromantic asexual wouldnt be committing sin because the cannon talks about those experiencing sexual attraction but since asexuals dont experience that then its not wrong. although i don’t know if this is considered ssa, i dont know the definition of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top