Would I be allowed to be in a relationship if I was never intimate or got married?

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree with you. But the notion of non-sexual intimacy is not easily understood. I’m not sure I can define it. Is it more than platonic? Entirely non-physical? Surely non-romantic.

Certainly not entirely unphysical – we are bodies, not just souls. But the physical touch could be modeled, as it were, on the touch of brothers and brothers, or fathers and sons. The central aspect of intimacy is emotional, however: knowing and being known. Surely we all need relationships like that, though some people meet this need exclusively through marriage. And in such relationships, open desire for the other person’s company and open expression of direct emotion toward the other is a good thing.

However, the goal is not marriage or romance – no more than brothers are romantic with each other!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There actually is a reason to use the term “partner” and that is to more accurately describe the relationship.

How so? If the relationship is one of committed friendship, then why would “partner” more accurately describe it? I have two male friends who I am committed to, but I hardly call them “partners”.

In our society, “partner” implies “sex partner”.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I agree with you. But the notion of non-sexual intimacy is not easily understood. I’m not sure I can define it. Is it more than platonic? Entirely non-physical? Surely non-romantic.

There are multiple types of nonsexual intimacy.

So, correct me if I am misunderstanding you. If a heterosexual man had a friendship with another male, and they share whatever degree of intimacy that they understood it, it would be accurate, although one might be married to a woman, to call them a partner?

Partner refers to a level of commitment that one cannot have multiple of.

What I am trying to get at, and understand, IF the term partner could be used to describle all friendships, then that is one thing. It isn’t used like that and naive for us to think so also. If I were to walk in and describe my best friend as my partner, who is NOT my husband, I should get some really strange looks as partner DOES mean something in addition to friendship - next level.

I already said it has a different meaning than friendship.

I’m talking about a level of commitment that excludes others, that doesn’t mean they a copulating.

So, does this mean the House show has turned gay? How surprising.

:doh2:

How so? If the relationship is one of committed friendship, then why would “partner” more accurately describe it? I have two male friends who I am committed to, but I hardly call them “partners”.

In our society, “partner” implies “sex partner”.

It refers to a higher level of commitment than you are describing.

 

[Hopey]

And Bromance, as it was explained to me, came about as an explanation healthy relationships between same-sex people. IOW, it was a response to those who didn’t mind giving a hug to another male and the answer that they were not gay nor sexually aroused by them.
That isn’t the same as using the term partner as one, or I should say the ones who are using bromance now, would not use the term partner.
They also find it offensive that they have to explain themselves or that every slap on the back means, to guys attracted to same sex, they may be available for more - gay.

 

[Hopey]

There are multiple types of nonsexual intimacy.

Partner refers to a level of commitment that one cannot have multiple of.

I already said it has a different meaning than friendship.

I’m talking about a level of commitment that excludes others, that doesn’t mean they a copulating.

:doh2:

It refers to a higher level of commitment than you are describing.

And that would be why it would be similar to a mock marriage and thus not a good thing, term, to use, right?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Partner refers to a level of commitment that one cannot have multiple of.

Why should friendship ever be exclusive in this way? Monogamy is a need for marriages, because of the connection between sexual faithfulness and good parenting – but this connection isn’t in play, for friendships.

 

[Rau]

Certainly not entirely unphysical – we are bodies, not just souls. But the physical touch could be modeled, as it were, on the touch of brothers and brothers, or fathers and sons. The central aspect of intimacy is emotional, however: knowing and being known. Surely we all need relationships like that, though some people meet this need exclusively through marriage. And in such relationships, open desire for the other person’s company and open expression of direct emotion toward the other is a good thing.

However, the goal is not marriage or romance – no more than brothers are romantic with each other!

Many brotherly relationships will not have the character of relationship that a person seeks in an “intimate” relationship (even if the intention is non-sexual). It’s all very well to have a non-romantic goal, but the natural attractions we experience may have other ideas.

I think the idea of a non-sexual intimate relationship is proper, and entirely possible for some individuals, but the course of such a relationship (for a person who is not married or similarly involved with another individual) may be quite hard to forecast.

 

[Rau]

Why should friendship ever be exclusive in this way? Monogamy is a need for marriages, because of the connection between sexual faithfulness and good parenting – but this connection isn’t in play, for friendships.

Friends calling themselves “partners” invite misunderstanding. Unless the context obviously demands otherwise, I understand that term to mean spouse, defacto, unmarried “intimate other” or equivalent.

 

[MacQ]

I’m gay, and I don’t care an awful lot about intimacy, in fact I don’t really want it. But I don’t want to be alone forever and have nobody(mortal) to love me. There are people out there who are romantically gay but don’t have any sexual desires, so it wouldn’t be impossible to find someone. I wouldn’t need to get married either if I’m not allowed to. But would I still be in the wrong just for being in a relationship? I’m trying to find something I’d be doing that is a sin, but I can’t think of anything. I guess I just want other opinions on this. If you think it’s still bad, I’d kind of like to see some doctrine supporting that, because I can’t find any. Also if your going to say it’s a choice, I promise you I’m not lying when I say I never chose it. Why would I choose it?

One thing that bothers me about your post is “allowed”.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

And that would be why it would be similar to a mock marriage and thus not a good thing, term, to use, right?

Were Newman and Ambrose St. John engaging in a mock marriage?

Why should friendship ever be exclusive in this way? Monogamy is a need for marriages, because of the connection between sexual faithfulness and good parenting – but this connection isn’t in play, for friendships.

It wouldn’t make much sense to someone who only understands the modern conception of friends.

 

[Hopey]

Were Newman and Ambrose St. John engaging in a mock marriage?

It wouldn’t make much sense to someone who only understands the modern conception of friends.

Can you tell me how Newman and Ambrose entered this picture?
Btw, I don’t think it is good practice to look back on friendships, if this is what you are doing, and assume they were gay.
Did they introduce themselves as partners or such?

 

[Wuggums47]

God bless you and please be assured of my prayers.

Dear one, we could find supporting doctrine and bombard you with church teaching but what would that accomplish? You are searching for love and companionship and your soul is hurting. I don’t think church documentation is going to help your heart.

Then there is the non-religious practical matter of finding someone of the opposite sex that will marry you. This would not be a small task I am afraid. Most people view marriage as a life-long union that involves sexual relations and possibly children. Finding someone to enter into a marriage with you, just because you “don’t want to be lonely forever” might be challenging.

Please consider what others have said, and pray that deep and close friendships with others might be your calling. Also, there is the beautiful option of giving of yourself and your time in volunteer work to lonely people, this is not trivial but can fill your life with much meaning, probably a lot more than a not-so-good marriage would. God bless.

I don’t think it would be fair of me to marry a woman. I wouldn’t be able to give her love or sex, so I’m not sure what would be in it for her. She would fall in love with me and it would probably break her heart.

 

[Wuggums47]

I don’t mean to be insensitive to your situation, but if your desire is for intimacy and sexual desire doesn’t play a heavy role, then what is wrong with seeking this intimacy with a woman? Just out of curiosity.

It’s because being gay isn’t all about sex, not to me anyways, It’s about love. I think I would still have some intimacy, I used the word intimacy because I wasn’t sure if we were supposed to say “sex” on this website.

 

[Rau]

It’s because being gay isn’t all about sex, not to me anyways, It’s about love. I think I would still have some intimacy, I used the word intimacy because I wasn’t sure if we were supposed to say “sex” on this website.

Intimacy and sex don’t mean the same thing necessarily. I’m now unclear what you do and do not seek. I understood you wanted a very close personal “special” relationship with another person, but NO sex. Is that right?

 

[Hopey]

Joie,
Maybe this will help you with Cardinal Newman:
Biographer of Cardinal Newman answers calumnies of homosexual lobby

Wuggums, is it possible to have a deep friendship of those who are the same sex? Yes. I don’t think it is wise to go looking for one. Friendships are there own. Some develop, some don’t.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Can you tell me how Newman and Ambrose entered this picture?
Btw, I don’t think it is good practice to look back on friendships, if this is what you are doing, and assume they were gay.
Did they introduce themselves as partners or such?

They clearly loved each other and had a profoundly meaningful relationship.

Joie,
Maybe this will help you with Cardinal Newman:
Biographer of Cardinal Newman answers calumnies of homosexual lobby

Wuggums, is it possible to have a deep friendship of those who are the same sex? Yes. I don’t think it is wise to go looking for one. Friendships are there own. Some develop, some don’t.

I never said he was gay or even bisexual, I merely referred to the depth of their relationship.

 

[zaus]

Such Charity

 

[Hopey]

They clearly loved each other and had a profoundly meaningful relationship.

I never said he was gay or even bisexual, I merely referred to the depth of their relationship.

Ok. When you brought up this example which has been used by the gay lobby as an example to them to delve into calumny, it was easy to be confused as we were talking about using the word partner and specifically looking for a partner for its sake, not for friendship that can bloom into deep relationships.

I would hope no one would deny that people can and do have deep and lasting friendships with all sexes. It is possible. What is wrong in my book is looking for someone to fill a longing you may have as it seems to put you in a situation which could cause sin and scandal. IOW, looking for a friend is one thing. A good thing. Looking for a partner is totally different as the connotations are sexual.

I do not look back on people who had close friendships with same-sex or opposite -sex and automatically assume it was sexual in nature, they were gay, etc. I do believe that is wrong to do. We have someone who has suffered and who can relate to us, Jesus, even when we feel alone in our suffering. I think that is what the Church is pointing us to, when we are lonely, etc, we always have Christ who can comfort us because he knows what it was like.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Ok. When you brought up this example which has been used by the gay lobby as an example to them to delve into calumny, it was easy to be confused as we were talking about using the word partner and specifically looking for a partner for its sake, not for friendship that can bloom into deep relationships.

I already said I’m not talking about a type of sexual relationship. Also while the LGB community is wrong it isn’t calumny.

I would hope no one would deny that people can and do have deep and lasting friendships with all sexes. It is possible. What is wrong in my book is looking for someone to fill a longing you may have as it seems to put you in a situation which could cause sin and scandal. IOW, looking for a friend is one thing. A good thing. Looking for a partner is totally different as the connotations are sexual.

Friends in general can put you in a situation that could cause sin and scandal.

I do not look back on people who had close friendships with same-sex or opposite -sex and automatically assume it was sexual in nature, they were gay, etc. I do believe that is wrong to do. We have someone who has suffered and who can relate to us, Jesus, even when we feel alone in our suffering. I think that is what the Church is pointing us to, when we are lonely, etc, we always have Christ who can comfort us because he knows what it was like.

Yes, Jesus was so alone he had a beloved.

 

[Hopey]

I already said I’m not talking about a type of sexual relationship. Also while the LGB community is wrong it isn’t calumny.

Friends in general can put you in a situation that could cause sin and scandal.

Yes, Jesus was so alone he had a beloved.

Calumny is the correct word for what they and others tried to do concerning them.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them

Can you explain your comment about Jesus further? If we do not think he took on all suffering including sin when he died on the cross, then we would not look to him as someone who can comfort us. I don’t understand what you mean by a beloved nor do I think it was appropriate for you to use it in that way in this discussion.

Going back to the original discussion, having a partner for partner sake, it still is not a good idea because of what partner means, more than friends.
Sure friends can be a good influence or bad. You would have to decide who to keep company with. A partner does not mean just a friend.