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

[Prodigal_Son]

Gay christians absolutely should have deep friendships. If they are blessed to find another person of the same (or opposite!) sex who also desires a non-romantic close lifelong friend to share a home and a life with, that’s awesome as well. But I’m pretty sure that trying to live halfway down the greased slope won’t work. Call it and live it a friendship and you have a shot at it. Try to “date” chastely and perpetually and you’ll fail at it. Brotherly love and romantic love just aren’t the same thing. It’s a failure of the English language that we use the same word for both.

 

[MacQ]

Gay christians absolutely should have deep friendships. If they are blessed to find another person of the same (or opposite!) sex who also desires a non-romantic close lifelong friend to share a home and a life with, that’s awesome as well. But I’m pretty sure that trying to live halfway down the greased slope won’t work. Call it and live it a friendship and you have a shot at it. Try to “date” chastely and perpetually and you’ll fail at it. Brotherly love and romantic love just aren’t the same thing. It’s a failure of the English language that we use the same word for both.

Well said.
The same could be said of straight relationships too.

 

[Hopey]

This whole thread illustrates how today’s gay lobby profoundly harms larger society. Whether it’s David and Jonathon or Cardinal Newman and his friend, the gay lobby has, perhaps unintentionally, created an atmosphere where any deep relational intimacy between men is assumed to be an indicator of homosexuality. This is really harmful! Men have a hard enough time establishing brotherhood without such insinuations being introduced. Historically, it seems to require the horrors of war before most men will really bond deeply.

The whole idea of two non-sexually involved people labeling one another as “partners” strikes me as absurd as well. The exclusivity of marriage is unique to marriage and characterizes the sexual union between them. Simulating that in a same sex deep friendship innately sexualizes that relationship and the couple will just be trying to fool themselves and/or others about their intention to have a chaste relationship, especially (if I read the OP right) if their intent is to have a relationship that includes physical affection just short of outright gay relations (to put it delicately). It’s a plan designed to fail.

Gay christians absolutely should have deep friendships. If they are blessed to find another person of the same (or opposite!) sex who also desires a non-romantic close lifelong friend to share a home and a life with, that’s awesome as well. But I’m pretty sure that trying to live halfway down the greased slope won’t work. Call it and live it a friendship and you have a shot at it. Try to “date” chastely and perpetually and you’ll fail at it. Brotherly love and romantic love just aren’t the same thing. It’s a failure of the English language that we use the same word for both.

It is especially hard for the youth as they are coming up with their own words to describe good, healthy affection toward friends of the same sex.

 

[manualman]

The ancient Greeks had a much vocabulary on the topic:

Filia (or is it Philia?) = Filial love = brotherly affection, loyalty and bond.

Agape = Self giving love that places the interests of the one loved higher than one’s own interests.

Eros = Romantic, passionate love characterized by the desire to possess.

What my long rambling above boils down to is that it is highly virtuous to develop bonds of filia and agape with members of the opposite sex, but that eros has no healthy place in a same sex relationship, even if it is technically on this side of the chaste line. One certainly can’t help if one FEELS it, but it is something to be restrained, not encouraged and fed with the expectation that one can then keep it in check before crossing the line of unchastity. This is hardly a burden limited to gay people. As a married man, I interact with women at work and socially all the time, but need to guard against the rise of Eros in any of those relationships.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

This whole thread illustrates how today’s gay lobby profoundly harms larger society. Whether it’s David and Jonathon or Cardinal Newman and his friend, the gay lobby has, perhaps unintentionally, created an atmosphere where any deep relational intimacy between men is assumed to be an indicator of homosexuality. This is really harmful! Men have a hard enough time establishing brotherhood without such insinuations being introduced. Historically, it seems to require the horrors of war before most men will really bond deeply.

I fail to see how “today’s gay lobby” is to blame for the decline in male friendships which began in the 18th century with the concept of marrying for love and became much more rapid with the creation of the homosexual as a deviant lurking about in the 19th century.

The whole idea of two non-sexually involved people labeling one another as “partners” strikes me as absurd as well. The exclusivity of marriage is unique to marriage and characterizes the sexual union between them. Simulating that in a same sex deep friendship innately sexualizes that relationship and the couple will just be trying to fool themselves and/or others about their intention to have a chaste relationship, especially (if I read the OP right) if their intent is to have a relationship that includes physical affection just short of outright gay relations (to put it delicately). It’s a plan designed to fail.

Please describe the exact kind of exclusivity marriage has.

Men used to be physically intimate with their male friends, it used to be normal.

Gay christians absolutely should have deep friendships. If they are blessed to find another person of the same (or opposite!) sex who also desires a non-romantic close lifelong friend to share a home and a life with, that’s awesome as well. But I’m pretty sure that trying to live halfway down the greased slope won’t work. Call it and live it a friendship and you have a shot at it. Try to “date” chastely and perpetually and you’ll fail at it. Brotherly love and romantic love just aren’t the same thing. It’s a failure of the English language that we use the same word for both.

What is friendship?

It is especially hard for the youth as they are coming up with their own words to describe good, healthy affection toward friends of the same sex.

They wouldn’t be coming up with new terms if heterosexual men hadn’t poisoned the water with homophobic bigotry.

The ancient Greeks had a much vocabulary on the topic:

Filia (or is it Philia?) = Filial love = brotherly affection, loyalty and bond.

Agape = Self giving love that places the interests of the one loved higher than one’s own interests.

Eros = Romantic, passionate love characterized by the desire to possess.

What my long rambling above boils down to is that it is highly virtuous to develop bonds of filia and agape with members of the opposite sex, but that eros has no healthy place in a same sex relationship, even if it is technically on this side of the chaste line. One certainly can’t help if one FEELS it, but it is something to be restrained, not encouraged and fed with the expectation that one can then keep it in check before crossing the line of unchastity. This is hardly a burden limited to gay people. As a married man, I interact with women at work and socially all the time, but need to guard against the rise of Eros in any of those relationships.

I suggest you read Deus Caritas Est

 

[Rau]

Men used to be physically intimate with their male friends, it used to be normal.

Explain physically intimate.
Was this intimacy reserved when the couple had privacy ?
Were genitals involved?

 

[Hopey]

The ancient Greeks had a much vocabulary on the topic:

Filia (or is it Philia?) = Filial love = brotherly affection, loyalty and bond.

Agape = Self giving love that places the interests of the one loved higher than one’s own interests.

Eros = Romantic, passionate love characterized by the desire to possess.

What my long rambling above boils down to is that it is highly virtuous to develop bonds of filia and agape with members of the opposite sex, but that eros has no healthy place in a same sex relationship, even if it is technically on this side of the chaste line. One certainly can’t help if one FEELS it, but it is something to be restrained, not encouraged and fed with the expectation that one can then keep it in check before crossing the line of unchastity. This is hardly a burden limited to gay people. As a married man, I interact with women at work and socially all the time, but need to guard against the rise of Eros in any of those relationships.

The use of those terms is a good idea. I will put a bug in my kids ear, connecting it with the Bromance, and see how well it catches on.

 

[manualman]

1. I fail to see how “today’s gay lobby” is to blame for the decline in male friendships which began in the 18th century with the concept of marrying for love and became much more rapid with the creation of the homosexual as a deviant lurking about in the 19th century.
2. Please describe the exact kind of exclusivity marriage has.
3. Men used to be physically intimate with their male friends, it used to be normal.
4. What is friendship?

I added the numbers above for clarity.

1. Wow, where to start? What the modern gay lobby has done is to seize upon nearly any example in history (I noted two) of men with a deep relational bond and say “See? They were obviously gay too and look what they contributed to history! You need to acknowledge our dignity and the validity of our emotions and desires because history shows that we’re just as much positive contributors to human flourishing as anybody else! Your so-called morals are just bigotry in disguise.”

Sound familiar? I went to college in Madison, WI so I can parrot the rhetoric. It resonates with people because it contains much that is TRUE. Gay people ARE just as much human beings as anybody else, created in the image and likeness of God. As such of COURSE they’ve made contributions to culture and human flourishing like anybody else. What the rhetoric (and the homophobes for that matter) miss is that ALL human beings are sinful and fallen, not just gay people. The fact that a person is inclined to a particular sin doesn’t make him utterly depraved like Satan. It makes him the star character in his own Shakespearian tragedy; good but tragically fallen. This is all of us, though each of us have our own particular weaknesses. Mine just happen to be different from those of gay men. So the trick of the rhetoric is to show themselves to be ordinary humans, thus proving the ‘goodness’ of the gay lifestyle. It’s a fallacy because ordinary humans are SINFUL!

But in attempting to make this argument, the gay apologists have sent the message to everybody that two men who are relationally close are obviously gay. Since that message is subtly buried in the larger propaganda, men not inclined towards that particular sin unconsciously hear that part of the message. Uncritically examined, it all to often has the effect of a chilling effect on men’s relationships. None of this occurs consciously, of course. Just like nobody sees a Coke commercial and consciously decides to buy that brand next time at the grocery store because they like the ad. But Coke doesn’t spend millions a year on advertising for nothing! It changes people’s behavior without them realizing it.

As for ‘created deviant’ I must admit a chuckle. If society overwhelmingly considers sodomy morally abhorrent, then those who secretly go out looking for the opportunity to engage in it probably WERE lurking deviants almost by definition. I don’t say that to demean people who struggle with the burden of an SSA, but acting on one’s inclinations is a choice, not a need. It almost certainly would have been easier to morally live with that burden in the 19th century than today. Those with an SSA attempting to live a chaste life today are attempting to climb UP the waterslide. Only Grace can save them now.

1. This really needs saying? As a married man, I don’t have an intimate relationship with any other woman. I don’t even go out to movies with them, travel with them, meet them alone at their homes, etc. I practice these disciplines as a means of guarding my heart against the rise of eros towards someone else. There simply is no need for such exclusivity in a relationship characterized by agape and filia.
2. Vague statement that could mean almost anything. Were men once much more inclined to, say, share a bed at an inn while traveling? Huddle together for warmth at night on a cold battlefield? Of course. Did guys previously make out and grope one another as expressions of male affection? Nonsense, unless they were gay.
3. Friendship is when two people decide to make themselves vulnerable to one another in trust that the other will do the same and the both will be stronger because of it. Why do you ask?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Explain physically intimate.
Was this intimacy reserved when the couple had privacy ?
Were genitals involved?

This is one of those times where it really does feel like men are from Mars and women are from Venus, it’s almost impossible to explain to men. In a number of ways it was similar to how physically intimate women are to this day and no it isn’t sexual.

The use of those terms is a good idea. I will put a bug in my kids ear, connecting it with the Bromance, and see how well it catches on.

It’s good except for the fact the way he describes eros is seriously flawed. His depiction of Eros is basically the poisoned version Nietzsche ranted about.

I added the numbers above for clarity.

1. Wow, where to start? What the modern gay lobby has done is to seize upon nearly any example in history (I noted two) of men with a deep relational bond and say “See? They were obviously gay too and look what they contributed to history! You need to acknowledge our dignity and the validity of our emotions and desires because history shows that we’re just as much positive contributors to human flourishing as anybody else! Your so-called morals are just bigotry in disguise.”

Sound familiar? I went to college in Madison, WI so I can parrot the rhetoric. It resonates with people because it contains much that is TRUE. Gay people ARE just as much human beings as anybody else, created in the image and likeness of God. As such of COURSE they’ve made contributions to culture and human flourishing like anybody else. What the rhetoric (and the homophobes for that matter) miss is that ALL human beings are sinful and fallen, not just gay people. The fact that a person is inclined to a particular sin doesn’t make him utterly depraved like Satan. It makes him the star character in his own Shakespearian tragedy; good but tragically fallen. This is all of us, though each of us have our own particular weaknesses. Mine just happen to be different from those of gay men. So the trick of the rhetoric is to show themselves to be ordinary humans, thus proving the ‘goodness’ of the gay lifestyle. It’s a fallacy because ordinary humans are SINFUL!

But in attempting to make this argument, the gay apologists have sent the message to everybody that two men who are relationally close are obviously gay. Since that message is subtly buried in the larger propaganda, men not inclined towards that particular sin unconsciously hear that part of the message. Uncritically examined, it all to often has the effect of a chilling effect on men’s relationships. None of this occurs consciously, of course. Just like nobody sees a Coke commercial and consciously decides to buy that brand next time at the grocery store because they like the ad. But Coke doesn’t spend millions a year on advertising for nothing! It changes people’s behavior without them realizing it.

As for ‘created deviant’ I must admit a chuckle. If society overwhelmingly considers sodomy morally abhorrent, then those who secretly go out looking for the opportunity to engage in it probably WERE lurking deviants almost by definition. I don’t say that to demean people who struggle with the burden of an SSA, but acting on one’s inclinations is a choice, not a need. It almost certainly would have been easier to morally live with that burden in the 19th century than today. Those with an SSA attempting to live a chaste life today are attempting to climb UP the waterslide. Only Grace can save them now.

1. This really needs saying? As a married man, I don’t have an intimate relationship with any other woman. I don’t even go out to movies with them, travel with them, meet them alone at their homes, etc. I practice these disciplines as a means of guarding my heart against the rise of eros towards someone else. There simply is no need for such exclusivity in a relationship characterized by agape and filia.
2. Vague statement that could mean almost anything. Were men once much more inclined to, say, share a bed at an inn while traveling? Huddle together for warmth at night on a cold battlefield? Of course. Did guys previously make out and grope one another as expressions of male affection? Nonsense, unless they were gay.
3. Friendship is when two people decide to make themselves vulnerable to one another in trust that the other will do the same and the both will be stronger because of it. Why do you ask?

1. The decline of friendship in men started in the 18th century. The LGBT community claiming certain historical figures is an effect, not a cause. It’s like a television series and you started fourteen story episodes into a story arch. It wouldn’t have been much easier in the 19th century, it would however have been much easier in the 12th century.
2. Women manage to deal with intimacy with other women just fine despite the fact that most women are bicurious heterosexuals.
3. Like the kind of physical intimacy that women often share with each other before marriage.
4. That isn’t how it is in the modern day hence why some feel the need to come up with new terms to describe their relationships.

 

[Hopey]

I have not found that most women are bi-curious. I have wondered if we have a level different than men, about feeling comfortable doing jobs, such as bathing elderly, children, etc, because it is built in or something. The women I am around would not describe themselves as such.

The definition of Eros is fine.
From CC:
Originally, in Greek mythology, the god of love. In the Christian vocabulary eros is possessive love; it is the love that desires for one’s own benefit. It is acquisitive love on whatever plane of self-satisfaction something is said to be loved, including learning or art, or, on a lower scale, the pleasures of sex, food, or bodily convenience. The term is most familiar in its adjective form of erotic or sexual. (Etym. Greek er_s,love.)

There comes a point when you will notice that the Catholic understanding of things are very different than secular understanding. You have to make a choice which one means the most to you. I wouldn’t use the Catholic definition for all things in a public setting. But for us, on a Catholic forum, with mainly Catholics, it would be appropriate. Such as the calumny definition being appropriate even though someone may not have meant it that way. It is similar to stealing in my book. If someone took something from me, without permission, and they are a stranger, it is still stealing no matter if they would like to think they just borrowed my car.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I have not found that most women are bi-curious. I have wondered if we have a level different than men, about feeling comfortable doing jobs, such as bathing elderly, children, etc, because it is built in or something. The women I am around would not describe themselves as such.

Mostly the issue is that sexuality for women is a lot more fluid than sexuality in men.

The definition of Eros is fine.
From CC:
Originally, in Greek mythology, the god of love. In the Christian vocabulary eros is possessive love; it is the love that desires for one’s own benefit. It is acquisitive love on whatever plane of self-satisfaction something is said to be loved, including learning or art, or, on a lower scale, the pleasures of sex, food, or bodily convenience. The term is most familiar in its adjective form of erotic or sexual. (Etym. Greek er_s,love.)

There are substantial difference between the definition you are using and the definition he was using.

There comes a point when you will notice that the Catholic understanding of things are very different than secular understanding. You have to make a choice which one means the most to you. I wouldn’t use the Catholic definition for all things in a public setting. But for us, on a Catholic forum, with mainly Catholics, it would be appropriate. Such as the calumny definition being appropriate even though someone may not have meant it that way. It is similar to stealing in my book. If someone took something from me, without permission, and they are a stranger, it is still stealing no matter if they would like to think they just borrowed my car.

Indeed they are different, he is using the secular definition which is inappropriate when discussing a theological matter.

Mostly I go with the true form of the Catechism which is Latin, all the others have issues.

 

[Hopey]

I am not finding mine more fluid. But I will ask those close to me this question, if they experience it to any degree.
His definition is a summary as the core of it is to possess which is what he said in his.
If you want to start with the Latin and translate it, it would be interesting to see how much, if any, the core meaning is.

 

[Hopey]

I do understand that the CCC had some error in their translations but the current one should be fine, current edition.

 

[Hopey]

FWIW, CC means Catholic Culture not the Catechism. That is where I got the definition and I consider them a reliable source.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I am not finding mine more fluid. But I will ask those close to me this question, if they experience it to any degree.

By fluid I don’t mean it will change, I mean that since attraction for women is much more dependent upon emotions and personality than physicality it is far easier for a woman to be in love with either. Additionally identity in women is far more rooted in who they love now hence why there are so many exgay, so many exheterosexual women and how there are women who will repeatedly flip from one to another and back again. There are of course women who are very heterosexual and very lesbian, but compared to men the fuzzy area is much larger.

His definition is a summary as the core of it is to possess which is what he said in his.

His definition is substantially more narrow and shallow than the actuality of eros.

If you want to start with the Latin and translate it, it would be interesting to see how much, if any, the core meaning is.

I’m not sure I could translate it sufficiently for the average layperson

I do understand that the CCC had some error in their translations but the current one should be fine, current edition.

It’s not that there are errors per se, but rather that it is easy for someone who hasn’t read reams of encyclicals and literary works by Doctors of the Church.

FWIW, CC means Catholic Culture not the Catechism. That is where I got the definition and I consider them a reliable source.

Deus Caritas Est by Pope Benedict XVI would be a good place to explore what the Church teaches. That document isn’t infallible, but considering how masterful a theologian he is, it functions as an excellent and accessible summary of what the Catholic Church teaches on love.

 

[manualman]

It’s good except for the fact the way he describes eros is seriously flawed. His depiction of Eros is basically the poisoned version Nietzsche ranted about.

1. The decline of friendship in men started in the 18th century. The LGBT community claiming certain historical figures is an effect, not a cause. It’s like a television series and you started fourteen story episodes into a story arch. It wouldn’t have been much easier in the 19th century, it would however have been much easier in the 12th century.
2. Women manage to deal with intimacy with other women just fine despite the fact that most women are bicurious heterosexuals.
3. Like the kind of physical intimacy that women often share with each other before marriage.
4. That isn’t how it is in the modern day hence why some feel the need to come up with new terms to describe their relationships.

Do you notice the pattern in your above responses? You criticize without proposing your vision of the corrected version. My intent was indeed to focus on the possessive aspect of eros and I’m open to hearing a concise definition that includes what you feel I left out. But you didn’t provide it, just the criticism.

1. That’s actually a very charitable interpretation or a very naïve one. Personally, I think they’ll grab anything they think might bolster their case. But neither of us is a mind reader. I’ll grant your explanation as plausible. Point.
2. New label of the day. ‘bicurious’ Lord help us, but we do love our labels.
3. Again, my examples are no good, but you give none (except a convenient tossout implying that men are probably too dumb to explain it to. Nice). Totally unhelpful conversation. I rather doubt that men used to get weepy about their stress and need hugs from their buddies. Most men I know don’t do that with their wives (your suggested substitute), nor do most men know what to do when their wives try that with us. When we get overwhelmed, we tend to want to go do something frivolous and active or if anger is involved we like to break stuff and ignite gunpowder… What? You’re just as weird to us!
4. I’ll grant that in the era of Facebook the word “friend” has no discernible difference from the word “acquaintance.” (faintly remembered acquaintance, even!) But I’m not in agreement that the solution is to retreat and attempt to coin new vocabulary, especially not words already almost universally understood to include sexual activity. That’s muddying the water even worse (I’m reading into your post an implied approval for the word ‘partner’ to refer to a deep friendship.).

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Do you notice the pattern in your above responses? You criticize without proposing your vision of the corrected version. My intent was indeed to focus on the possessive aspect of eros and I’m open to hearing a concise definition that includes what you feel I left out. But you didn’t provide it, just the criticism.

Person A: Explain Calculus like I’m five
Person B: No

My point is that the word eros has too much meaning to give a “concise” definition to.

1. That’s actually a very charitable interpretation or a very naïve one. Personally, I think they’ll grab anything they think might bolster their case. But neither of us is a mind reader. I’ll grant your explanation as plausible. Point.

It wouldn’t even have been possible had heterosexual men not disowned intimate friendships.

1. New label of the day. ‘bicurious’ Lord help us, but we do love our labels.

Label du jour is so much fun.

Most women are quite capable of having and enjoying a sexual relationship with women, of course this is partially because said sex is far more enjoyable than heterosexual sex and largely because women actually understand the feelings of women.

1. Again, my examples are no good, but you give none (except a convenient tossout implying that men are probably too dumb to explain it to. Nice). Totally unhelpful conversation. I rather doubt that men used to get weepy about their stress and need hugs from their buddies. Most men I know don’t do that with their wives (your suggested substitute), nor do most men know what to do when their wives try that with us. When we get overwhelmed, we tend to want to go do something frivolous and active or if anger is involved we like to break stuff and ignite gunpowder… What? You’re just as weird to us!

I at no point implied that men are too dumb regarding anything, instead it’s about the matter being alien to modern men.

Actually men, English men mind you, used to get very emotional about their relationships with men and used to write poetry, indeed Lord Tennyson spent seventeen years writing In Memoriam A.H.H. (which happens to be where we get the phrase
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

Actually I do understand quite a bit about anger and breaking stuff, I once felled and chopped up an entire tree with a axe and also about shooting hundreds of rounds at a firing range.

1. I’ll grant that in the era of Facebook the word “friend” has no discernible difference from the word “acquaintance.” (faintly remembered acquaintance, even!) But I’m not in agreement that the solution is to retreat and attempt to coin new vocabulary, especially not words already almost universally understood to include sexual activity. That’s muddying the water even worse (I’m reading into your post an implied approval for the word ‘partner’ to refer to a deep friendship.).

The word “friend” had already been much belittled by the time Mark Zuckerberg had been born. See this for more on the usage of partner.

 

[Hopey]

There comes a point when we think we understand something, but are unable to give a definition of it or find a reliable source to help us that we might not understand it as well as we think we do.
There are times I am not able to explain things and turn to different sources.
There are times when I am unable to give an explanation of what I think to be the definition because I don’t understand it.
I have read Pope Benedict’s encyclicals and many others.
Do you have a favorite quote?
He is an awesome theologian and I hope he writes more!

 

[manualman]

M’kay, you’re getting to the point of telling TMI on your own sexual feelings…
I’m not so sure you’re an accurate spokesperson for all womankind though. Probably a moot point, so we’ll drop that one.

So you refuse to improve my poor layman’s definition of eros, but insist it’s wrong. Actually you’re wrong. But the reason why is secret!

Regardless of good intentions, the word ‘partner’ is far more beyond retrieval in popular definition than friend is. It’s an interesting idea, but hopelessly buried by gay social engineering.

I’ll have to take your word on Tennyson. I’ve never been able to appreciate poetry unless it has a melody attached…

 

[Rau]

…Mostly I go with the true form of the Catechism which is Latin, all the others have issues.

That’s a pity, given approximately 0% of the flock read Latin!