POPE AND DISCRIMINATION OF GAYS

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.

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

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.
___________

“Summary
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:

European Parliament resolution of 24 May 2012 on the fight against homophobia in Europe

(2012/2657(RSP))

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)
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr … ns_en.html

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).

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=106

GAYS AND FREEDOM WITHOUT EQUALITY

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 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.

TITLE III – EQUALITY

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.

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=105

FROM PERPLEXED HETERO TO HAPPY GAY

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. When we had the opportunity to talk about gay people she replied as one who takes no offense but with “them” just doesn’t want to have anything to do.

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!)

Max

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=104

GAYS AND SEXUAL MORAL

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 to his comment:

“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 another. 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 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 feel 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?

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=103

GAY LOVE FROM GAY SINGLE TO GAY COUPLE

Let me to start with an analogy derived from physical chemistry, in my opinion really appropriate to introduce the subject. 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 (C) 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 he cannot regain it. 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 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. 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, which 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 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 that 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.

_______

If you like, you can join the discussion on this post on Gay Project Forum:

http://gayprojectforum.altervista.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=102