So I found out a friend from my freshman ward is doing the “I’m in the closet and I mess around with guys but I’m not gay and I plan on marrying a girl in the temple” thing. I feel really bad for him. Not much I can do, but it’s sad That makes 8 gay guys from that ward. Recent comment on MoHo Facebook Forum
[G]ay men who court and marry straight women have privilege, power and information their wives lack. Gay men who court and marry straight women might have been deceived and victimized by the church, but they subsequently deceive and victimize their wives, and they can and should stop. ~ Holly Welker
This is not a post about the appropriateness of facial hair. It is about gay Mormons men who have married, or perhaps plan or hope to marry, a woman. More to the point, it is ultimately about the women in such marriages: the beards of their gay Mormon husbands (in that they are used as a spouse to conceal the husbands sexual orientation).
The Challenge
I was challenged to write about this topic by a commenter who participated in a long string of comments in response to an essay I published here on Main Street Plaza called Reflections on An Overwhelming Emptiness. The MSP essay (which I had also published on my own blog) consisted of a review of and commentary on comments left on my blog in response to a couple of posts about Mormon mixed-orientation marriages (MoMoMs).
The challenge was framed by the following comments by Holly Welker:
Anyone looking at the images [on your blog] would think that a straight woman/gay man [Mo]MoM is entirely about the man in it and from every gay male MoMoM blog Ive read, that would be a reasonable inference. What could you do to bring more attention to the woman in a/your marriage? Could you have images of women beautiful, broken, defiant, angry, weeping? Could you write posts with titles like Remember: Youre marrying a WOMAN, not an Idea and Whats Going to Happen to Your Wife When it All Falls Apart?
[Y]our marriage is not about only you, and I am suggesting that it might be a good idea to demonstrate in your writing and on your blog more awareness, concern and compassion for what your decisions have cost your wife, because by doing so, you can get single gay men on the verge of repeating your mistake to factor in more accurately and appropriately to their decision what that decision will cost any woman they might marry, and I would hope most devoutly that they would actually care about that.
I had several knee-jerk reactions to what Holly wrote. My initial reaction was that my blog is written (1) by a gay man, (2) about gay men, (3) to gay men; it is not written by, about or for women. I also frankly resented what to me was the patronizing insinuation that I needed to demonstrate on my blog more awareness, concern and compassion for what my decisions had cost my wife. Furthermore, I am not a woman, and could not, even if I chose to, purport to express a womans feelings, let alone my own wifes feelings.
For these and other reasons, I extended an invitation to Holly to write a guest post for my blog that would bring more attention to the woman in a [MoMoM] and achieve the other goals she described. She declined to do so, however, referring me instead to an article she wrote for Sunstone on the subject (to which I will refer in later posts).
In the weeks since that post on MSP, I have thought about Hollys challenge and about some of the issues raised by commenters to the MSP post. I decided I would try to put together a series of posts on my blog that address these issues albeit probably in a manner different than Holly (or any other woman) would have. This is the first of these posts that will be published in the coming days. I anticipate that there will be at least an additional four, perhaps more (published on my blog), depending on comments received to this and subsequent posts. I am hopeful that these essays will generate a lot of discussion on a subject that desperately needs to be discussed openly.
What Did You Know and When Did You Know It?
This question, a paraphrase of a famous question posed by Senator Howard Baker during the Watergate hearings, is about as good a place as any to start.
[However,] a major concern in all of this remains the timing of gay mens deep concern about the welfare of the women they marry. I wish it happened sooner as in, before courtship. I cant help feeling that so many MoMoMs happen because the person with the incompatible orientation doesnt think through the anguish theyll be creating for a partner who is deeply in love with a spouse who cant reciprocate.
[I]f your marriage is wrecked, divorce if you must. But dont delude yourself into thinking that youre just setting [your wife] free to fly off and find love. For a lot of single moms out there, there is no second shot, and no one else waiting out there. Sure, she may have been miserable WITH you. But that doesnt automatically mean shell be less miserable WITHOUT you. A real man faces that fact, and takes accountability for it. No matter what his sexual preferences [emphasis added].
In a follow-up comment, Seth wrote: I dont really think a gay guy has any better reason for divorcing his wife than your average straight guy who no longer finds his wife sexually attractive, or doesnt love her, etc.
Well, besides the issues I had with Seths tone and choice of words, I was left with the firm impression that Seth has little or no understanding of what it means to be gay or what it feels like to be in a deeply troubled marriage.
But enough about Seth.
Lets get back to the question: For those guys out there with beards, what did you know about your sexuality and when did you know it? And the $64,000 question when did (or have) you disclosed the fact that your gay to your wife? For those gay guys out there who are considering damning the torpedoes and proceeding with a traditional Mormon marriage, in spite of the fact that you know or strongly suspect you are gay gay gay, when do you plan to tell your young lady about it?
I have to admit that my initial reaction to Hollys comments, quoted several paragraphs above, could be characterized as irritation. She certainly seemed to be saying (or implying) that young Mormon men should, prior to even courting a girl, (1) know their sexual orientation, (2) embrace that orientation enough to be able to take responsibility for it, (3) feel comfortable enough about that orientation to be able to come out to a girl, and (4) have resolved any conflicts between their sexual identity and LDS teachings concerning homosexuality, eternal marriage and the entire Plan of Salvation.
The Gameplan
I want to address each of these points in subsequent posts, as well as Hollys statement that so many MoMoMs happen because the person with the incompatible orientation doesnt think through the anguish theyll be creating for a partner who is deeply in love with a spouse who cant reciprocate.
Because I feel I should put some skin in the game and respond to Hollys challenge, to the extent I am able, I will devote a couple of posts to my own experience and marriage (making it clear that I have always been very protective of my wifes privacy and will continue to be so). I will also examine the factors that have resulted and continue to result in MoMoMs, including addressing issues relating to female sexuality in the Church (relying heavily on comments left on the MSP post by Holly and Chanson). I am hopeful as well that I will be able to include remarks by women who are married to gay men.
Though my initial reaction to the implied points listed above and to Hollys comment (about thinking through the anguish created for a beard) was again – one of irritation proceeding from a perceived lack of understanding on Hollys part and the imposition by her of unrealistic expectations on young Mormon men, this reaction has been tempered somewhat by thought and time, and this will be reflected in subsequent points.
I do believe that Hollys main point is valid and true: As difficult and painful as MoMoMs are for gay men, they are likely to be equally, if not ultimately more, painful for the woman involved. And more often than not, she is likely to be ignorant, going into the marriage, of her husbands true orientation. Gay Mormon men have to take responsibility for that ignorance.
As Holly wrote, men have more agency and control in the matter of courtship and they have privilege, power and information their [future] wives lack. As such, it is incumbent on young gay Mormon men in no small part because they have the ability to do so now more than ever before to come to grips with their sexuality prior to any kind of a marriage. Gay men who court and marry straight women might have been deceived and victimized by the church, Holly concedes, but they subsequently deceive and victimize their wives, and they can and should stop.
I would alter Hollys statement to say that gay Mormon men have [not might have] been indoctrinated, deceived and victimized by the Church in a number of ways that I will discuss in subsequent posts. As to the rest of her statement, however, she is absolutely correct. The downstream deception and victimization of women – which is foreshadowed by the other quote at the beginning of this post – needs to stop. And the moral responsibility of the Mormon Church to do something about this situation can no longer be ignored.
Invictus Pilgrim blogs at http://invictuspilgrim.blogspot.com.
The second installment in this series is posted here.
The third installment in this series is posted here.
“I was left with the firm impression that Seth has little or no understanding of what it means to be gay or what it feels like to be in a deeply troubled marriage.”
Probably true, but so what?
First, in this passage you quote as coming from me
the first paragraph is actually a statement from you that I am quoting, and I would like you to make that clear.
But you could marry a straight woman without worrying too much about what her feelings might be about ending up with a gay husband who doesn’t really desire her and can’t stay faithful to her?
This is not a fair characterization of my position. In the Sunstone essay you refer to, I write:
What I am actually saying is that Mormon men who know they are gay prior to marriage should be real christians and put the happiness of any woman they might consider courting above their own. They should work out their ambivalence about the plan of salvation without threatening the happiness and well-being of another.
Is that an unreasonable position?
Finally, in response to your statements about your irritation at the patronizing nature of my comments to you–well, consider the contempt and misogyny in the basic disregard many gay Mormon men exhibit for their wives’ situations. Would you want one of your daughters to end up with a husband who couldn’t really love her, who was marrying her partly as a way to preserve his own respectability and righteousness?
If someone really has to point out to you that you might not want someone to do to your daughter what you’ve done to someone else’s, it’s sometimes hard to do it without seeming patronizing.
Holly — I can see why you want to clarify these points, but I feel like Invictus is saying “When I first read Holly’s (and Seth’s) comments, I felt defensive, however I can see that Holly made some important points, hence I will set aside my initial emotional reaction in order to explore these points.” I’m curious to hear what he has to say — and I strongly respect his decision to respect his wife’s privacy by not attempting to interpret her perspective for us.
p.s. I will add, and should have said upfront, that I’m grateful and pleased that you’re tackling this topic, and appreciate the clarity and courage you’re showing as you do it.
p.p.s. Chanson, you’re right–and I’m also looking forward to the ensuing discussion.
I read a great essay in a collection about the show “Six Feet Under”. The essay was about showing gay characters in groundbreaking roles. The essay I thought is appropriate for this discussion is “Revisiting the closet:Reading sexuality in Six Feet Under”. Instead of the main character, David, being the most important figure, Claire’s boyfriend Russell was an interesting figure. Whether or not he is gay is never determined. Many people, including Claire, believe he’s gay. The notion that a person is exploring their own sexuality and has a right to determine that for themselves is key to my mind. Mormon and conservative culture does not allow that exploration. There is no closet. God would never do that. Things may be changing where GLBT people are allowed to be faithful, as long as they are celibate.
I am arguing that sexuality is not clear and not defined. I respect Holly’s position, considering another person’s feelings is incredibly important. But denial is very strong in our culture. It is easier to deny a situation is a certain way, when all the cheese, all the “rewards” are based on a certain path. Everything, including happiness if one believes what is said in church is based on hetero marriage. For both women and men. I am therefore not surprised that both women and men deny to themselves what they may “know” or later discover about their sexuality, since everything is against them making the choice to come out.
Women’s voices and opinions are routinely silenced in the lds church, this is nothing new. Particularly if they are voices that run contrary to the status quo. Men are (most likely) told from a young age that it is the greatest honor to ask a woman to marry them, women aren’t in charge of their lives. I wish we heard more from women who realize their husbands are gay, and leave their husband’s even if the husband doesn’t want to leave the marriage.
aerin, I was under the impression that we weren’t hearing the story of the wives of gay men – period – whether they want to keep the marriage or end it.
I realize that that’s the EASY thing–at least in the short run. In the long run, however, it often becomes incredibly difficult and costly. For that and other reasons, I think we must point out how prone to disaster and tragedy the “easy” way can be, and make alternatives to it easier to choose.
it’s true that few such women have chosen to comment here. But there are forums where they discuss their lives and their situations, and if you really want to hear from them, it’s easy enough to track them down. For starters, just google “straight spouse.”
I also recommend this essay by Emily Pearson about both her parents’ MOM and her own: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/141-42-48.pdf
My concern about IP’s lack of attention to his wife’s situation (however much he guarded her privacy, which is not the same thing) proceeded in part from a passage in Pearson’s essay:
I think it is the responsibility of the gay spouse to make sure the straight spouse remains visible. It is not the straight spouse’s responsibility to explain him/herself to US–not at MSP, and not in any other venue either, for that matter.
It’s true that Pearson’s essay is amazing, and that passage stands out.
That said, I’m really conflicted on this issue of Invictus “keeping his wife visible” in this. Yes, her experience is critical to this story. Yet, I absolutely don’t want to read Invictus saying: “Here’s what my wife is feeling…” I think that’s unfair to her because — if she doesn’t think her perspective is our business — then it’s not our business. Plus, if we get one person’s filtered version of another person’s POV, then we can’t analyze it and learn from it because we have no way of assessing how accurate a portrayal it is.
It’s better to find women in this situation who want to tell their stories. As you point out, they’re not hard to find.
You’re absolutely right. I am talking more about a larger attitude and approach than the particulars of how Invictus should or shouldn’t discuss his particular story.
@Holly – I apologize for the mix-up on the quote. I have corrected this.
As to your other comments, I will hold off on responding, except to say that you are making some rather HUGE assumptions about matters, i.e., my situation, that you know very little about. I have already indicated that I plan to put some skin in the game. However, it will be my skin.
@Chanson – I appreciated your comments in #3 and 11, as well as Holly’s follow-up comment in #’s 4 & 5. I wish to clarify, however, (with respect to #3) that my initial reaction was indeed one of irritation, not defensiveness.
@Chanson and Holly – I do know of two women in MoMoMs who have blogged about their experiences and feelings. I hope to involve them in this discussion. Whether or not they choose to do so, however, is obviously up to them.
@Aerin – I appreciated your comments, in that they point to the fact that the issues involved here are extremely complex and multi-faceted.
My goal in presenting this series of posts is to put information out there for consideration, primarily by young Mormon men who are struggling with their sexual identity and a host of issues that go along with and are inseparably connected with that identity. The ultimate goal, of course, is to help put an end to MoMoMs.
I use the term “struggling” intentionally, and in order to deal with that struggle in healthy ways, information and points of view need to get “out there” because, as you point out, these young men certainly aren’t getting this information from the Church. These are not issues that will be discussed in Sunday School, priesthood meeting, sacrament meeting or ANY other meeting in the Church. The only place they will be discussed is in forums such as this.
There is usually anger when any marriage or relationship ends. I reject the idea that someone in the relationship is 100% at fault for the ending of that relationship. I think it is rarely that simple. Even in a MOMarriage or relationship, the spouse is getting something, persumably. In the sense of social or financial standing. I can’t imagine anyone advocating MoM, of course, I’m not an active mormon. Why would anyone do that to themselves, their spouse or potential children? I think it takes a great deal of courage to admit a relationship isn’t working. In the MOM argument, to leave the marriage…because the idea of being alone is better than being married to someone….I think the discussion of marriage is assuming many things; married people are always in love, always attracted to one another, do not have financial, emotional and logistical reasons for staying married, etc. It’s suggesting that married people don’t change. I think married people do change, and that ‘s why the divorce rate is at 50%. The temple divorce rate, people married in the lds temple and then civilly divorced is still very high, if it’s not 50%. Not all of those divorces are because of MoM.
All these questions are complicated and may have different answers for different people. As painful as a divorce or separation might be for both people in a relationship, sometimes it’s for the best for both people. That goes for all sorts of relationships, if you can’t be fully present, it will probably be painful in the end (thinking of charles and diana actually).
Holly @ 2
Can I assume that you would also agree that Mormon women who know they are straight prior to marriage should be “real christians” and put the happiness of any potentially gay man they are courting above their own?
I agree that making alternatives easier to see and choose is the best route for everyone. But aerin’s point, as I took it, is that “denial” of what one “knows to be true” (e.g, that one is “gay”) is a misnomer of what’s actually happening. The gay man or woman doesn’t possess a “secret” knowledge about him or herself that, if not revealed, “tricks” the straight person. To frame it this way would be to blame the victim.
People are thrust into the closet against their will, and often the gay person is the last person to know they’re in there. By this, I mean that the closet isn’t just about who is gay and who isn’t gay, and having knowledge about that. It’s about the expectations, demands, and constraints produced when heterosexuality is taken as the norm (questions of patriarchy are separate and related). So, the question of how much the gay man (or woman) has a “responsibility” to fix this or deter things from going awry (whether or not s/he knows his or her own sexuality) is an open question, since it was never that person’s “fault” that things could potentially go awry more than they could go awry for another person.
A lot of people think the political answer is for everyone who is gay to come “out” and be “proud” to show that alternatives are there (and that gay people exist and deserve rights and so on). But being prideful about one’s position does not necessarily translate into the societal changes one is seeking. As aerin states in a different way, staying in the closet for Mormon men isn’t just about the privileges of being a Mormon man, but it’s about being Mormon. There are plenty of Mormon couples these days who both parties know going into the marriage that one of them is gay (e.g., Ty Mansfield and his wife), and yet they still enter the marriage. So, it seems to me that the question of “denial” is broader than just having self-knowledge about one’s potential sexuality.
You know, I’ve seen those “temple divorce rates” thrown around a lot on the Internet, but don’t often seem them accompanied by citations or other proof of the numbers.
I would say that if a straight woman insists on pursuing a gay man and asking him to marry her, she should consider his happiness above her own.
But that’s not usually what happens. Men in our society–particularly in Mormondom–have greater agency, power and control in general, but especially in courtship and marriage. Men usually propose. While I know if at least one instance in which a straight woman proposed to a man she knew was gay, more often it is the case that men who know or suspect they are gay court, propose to and marry women they know or suspect they are straight.
the fact that there are people who don’t understand their own sexuality well enough to understand how it will affect another’s doesn’t mitigate the misogyny or imbalance of the basic situation.
@10 — That is a fantastic story you linked to. I took this opportunity to re-read it for the pleasure. This time this incident jumped out at me:
As crazy as that incident may seem, it was exactly like that when my brother came out to me. It had never consciously crossed my mind, but as soon as he asked me to guess what he wanted to talk to me about, that came out of my mouth, and it was as though I’d known it all along.
Keep in mind that in those days there was so much less awareness of the whole idea of being gay, so just considering the idea was like a revelation that suddenly made everything make sense.
@18: Yes, this is often how the “closet” works; it’s often made of one-sided glass in which the only person who can’t see through it is the person on the inside.
That’s why I’m troubled by Holly’s position, because it seems like she’s saying that gay men who do know about their sexuality at the time they’re courting straight women, and fail to tell those women, are engaging in “patriarchy.” But isn’t it also the woman’s fault if she marries a gay man (whether or not he is out), since she fails to see “what’s in front of her” because of her heterosexual privilege?
Well, then, Alan, let me clarify, so you don’t have to worry about what it “seems” like I’m saying.
I’m saying that men who know about their sexuality at the time theyre courting straight women, and fail to tell those women, are engaging in patriarchy and misogyny.
Very likely. That does not mean that her “fault” is equal to the fault of a gay man who is not merely exercising all the privileges of patriarchy but exercising and striving to retain all the privileges of heterosexuality as well.
However much privilege the woman in question might have, she still has less than the man in question. And that is the crucial point.
It’s true that there are a variety of different possibilities. Sometimes people a little bit outside the situation benefit from perspective that people inside the situation lack. OTOH, people inside the situation have additional information that they know (and intentionally or unintentionally withhold for various reasons). And I don’t mean to insult by using the term “the situation” — rather I want to make it clear that this is a general principle about how it is difficult to self-analyze and it is difficult to analyze others.
Who wields more power in the Church? The prophet’s wife, or a black Mormon man who is excommunicated because he has a same-sex partner?
I don’t think “patriarchy” automatically trumps other sites of power-broking. It’s better just to try to fight all the “bad stuff” simultaneously rather than pit people against each other.
Who wields more power in the church: the prophet’s wife (whose power derives entirely from the status of her husband), or a gay black Mormon man who has not been excommunicated, and still holds and exercises the priesthood–power he derives because of who he is himself?
I think it trumps most of them.
Funny, then, that you so rarely do the former and so often do the latter.
Holly, just because some gay men can “pass” as straight men does not negate the heterosexism placed upon them. The gay man who is able to pass and keeps a “secret” from his future wife is not “exercising and striving to retain heterosexual privilege.” He does not have heterosexual privilege, whether or not he “passes.” It is not appropriate to blame him for not “coming out” (even if it it toward a potential future wife). To insist upon his doing so would be heterosexist (and I think there are plenty of gay people who engage in this behavior … insisting others out of the closet for this or that reason). So, yes, heterosexism and patriarchy must be attacked simultaneously.
that is as may be. But if he doesn’t want to come out, he can avoid the issue by not courting and marrying a woman. If he truly “passes” as straight, it is appropriate to blame him for pursuing a woman under false pretenses–and for acting as if he holds heterosexual privilege, even if he does not.
I agree that they must be attacked simultaneously. I just don’t think YOU do that.
There’s no way for him to “avoid the issue.” In Mormon culture, every man is expected to marry a woman (and every woman expected to marry a man), which is the heterosexist problem to begin with.
This notion of the man giving off “false pretenses” is deeply troubling. You’re basically blaming him for the way heterosexism is thrust upon him. It would be like blaming the woman for giving off “false pretenses” that she is somehow compatible with a gay man, which of course sounds nonsensical — so why should it be acceptable when it’s the other way around? Are you saying gay men need to shoulder the burden of heterosexism more than hetero women because they’re men?
I feel like I’m jumping on a conversation way too late…but here goes…
What I hear Holly saying is that gay LDS men need to give up on the Celestial Kingdom for the only way to do achieve it is to be heterosexually married. Somehow, even though everything in the church is pointed towards that one goal, a gay LDS man should have the balls to say, “There’s something about me that excludes me from that dream.”
Personally I feel like the question “When did you know?” is the wrong question. It assumes that the default is straight and that somewhere along the way the person switches…like there’s a fork in the road and the man leans a little too far left and therefore takes the left gay route. But I’m just me. I’m the person I’ve known all along… what actually happened was that there was a point that I realized that the ME that I always was … was a BAD, bad thing and that I needed to try my hardest to be something else. Meanwhile the church is telling me that who I really am doesn’t exist! How joyful to realize that the big bad me in me doesn’t really exist but that it’s a choice! I can just choose to date and marry and therefore the bad part of me doesn’t exist.
Now, you’re telling me that at some point before I married I should have, contrary to church teachings, acknowledged that even though I was NOT choosing it I should have contradicted church teachings and admitted that the big bad me in me really DID exist? And thereby give up the celestial kingdom?
Personally, I have daughters and of course I wouldn’t want to have them marry a gay man… but until something changes and there is a hopeful, safe place for these gay LDS men to go, LDS women need to know that lurking out there among the eligible men are a certain percent of faithful GAY men who aren’t trying to deceive them but only want the Celestial Kingdom as badly as any other faithful Mormon.
I am holding him accountable for the way he responds to heterosexism.
I am saying that gay men are privileged in ways that even straight women are not, and that it is abhorrent for them to victimize women simply because they themselves have been victimized.
It’s interesting. I have been having this conversation for over 20 years with successive generations of gay Mormon men. A few weeks, a few months, a few years later, they invariably come back and say to me, “Holly, I realize now that you were right.” Few are as doggedly, determinedly wrong as you are, Alan, but then, few exhibit as little concern for women as you do.
Every woman in this conversation managed to express sympathy and concern for gay men. You, however, have not managed to express any sympathy and concern for women. Your only apparent interest is in defending the choices and actions of gay men. All of the women have acknowledged that straight women bear some responsibility for what happens to them in a MOM. You, however, can admit no responsibility on the part of gay men.
I realize that people should have the freedom to do what they want, and I also realize that some people are happy in MOMs. My experience and observation tell me, however, that such couples are in the minority, that most people who end up in them are miserable. I am therefore interested in having conversations that reduce the likelihood and occurrence of MOMs–particularly among young, naive, sexually inexperienced Mormons whose expectations for marriage are already typically greater than those held by the general public.
I hold the position I do because I think ultimately it will improve the lives, increase the well-being, and promote the happiness of both women and men (regardless of orientation) as they choose mates, as well as that of any children born to them.
How does YOUR position–that it is inappropriate to expect a gay man to refrain from lying to a woman he courts, proposes to and marries–improve the lives, increase the well-being and promote the happiness of ANYONE but gay men?
It doesn’t. But then, why would anyone expect anything else from you, given that you think patriarchy’s not so bad.
So much for your assertion that “Its better just to try to fight all the ‘bad stuff’ simultaneously rather than pit people against each other.” You don’t really think that–you think it’s just fine to hold off on fighting patriarchy if doing so benefits gay men.
But it’s nice to know that I was right all along not to take seriously your posturing and posing about being a feminist.
dadsprimalscream,
Point-of-order.
Quite a few believing Mormons would assert that once a gay man makes it to heaven, God will remove his problem with homosexuality and he’ll be able to be heterosexually married just like everyone else.
Just thought that ought to be stated.
Once again, it’s all about the men. Women have to protect themselves from men who aren’t trying to deceive or hurt them, who just sort of manage to do it anyway, and that’s just how it is going to be, because what men want is more important than what women want–or deserve.
Ah yes the all-purpose LDS fail-safe… “It will all be taken care of in the after-life.”
Except for the small little problem of… Alma 12:14 which says, “…our thoughts will also condemn us…”
So you get married thinking that along the way you’re going to be able to be fully “righteous” and “pure” but 10, 15 or 20 years into your marriage you are reading your scriptures one day for edification and for help in enduring to the end and you realize that you still have “those” thoughts. And it all just seems hopeless. You’ll be condemned no matter what, married or single and celibate.
The “hold out” answer really only works for people who have no significant challenges of their own.
Well, in my case my ex-wife filed for divorce, not me. I was not unfaithful. My ex-wife would never read or much less respond to a question such as yours so we’ll never hear from her. I’m not saying it’s all about the men…or the women. It’s BOTH! And it’s also different now than it was even just 17 years ago when I married.
But, to put this in LDS context, here’s a conversation that I had with my ex-wife:
ME: Didn’t you pray to Heavenly Father to ask if you should marry me?
HER: Yes
ME: And what was your answer? I didn’t “know” I was gay and you didn’t either, but he must have known right?
HER: Yes, I received confirmation that we should get married.
ME: Then it’s GOD you should be pissed off at, not me.
I can agree 100% with what you said to her.
I always regret jumping into these kinds of conversations, because I always get hit by crossfire.
Anyway,
I’m not Holly, and I don’t really understand this stuff anyway, but the thing that came first to my mind when seeing Alan ask this was, “If men are the people who gain the greater benefit of heterosexism and patriarchy, then why shouldn’t they shoulder the burden?”
However much gay men are victims of heterosexism, and even unwitting cogs in the heterosexist machine…well, precisely by virtue of being men, they have more to gain, more privilege borne, from these same systems. The only thing I’m unsure of is the intersection between “heterosexism” and “patriarchy”. That is, the two are related, but I’m guessing that much of the privilege is part of the patriarchy (which men receive the advantage), so in trying to look only at the heterosexism (of which the gay man is a victim) one misses the privilege from the patriarchy that gave him such high stakes in his role in heterosexism.
Andrew, thanks. I think you express the issue succinctly and well.
Andrew @ 34
Of course, when you include both heterosexism and patriarchy, men would shoulder the burden more.
But you just added patriarchy when my question @26 was solely about heterosexism.
What if I were to ask the following: “If a white woman gains the benefit of racism, shouldn’t she shoulder the burden?”… would it make sense to include patriarchy, by saying: “Actually, women have less power than men, so let’s reframe the discussion to one about men versus women.”
No, that would be rude. And frankly, it’s something many people do when confronted with the ways they are oppressive; they focus instead on the ways they’re oppressed. I’m willing to talk about patriarchy, heterosexism, and their intersections with each other and other aspects of power. But I refuse to receive another round of Holly’s barrages, where she insults me simply for not agreeing with her, or pushing on her logic.
Just because YOUR question was solely about heterosexism, Alan, doesnt mean the rest of us should fail to acknowledge that heterosexism is not the only issue affecting the matter under discussion.
If the issue is a relationship between a white woman and a black man, it would intellectually responsible rather than rude to acknowledge how both racism and sexism affect the dynamics of the relationship.
Ive heard similar pronouncements before, and Ill be really impressed if you can avoid mansplaining us all to death again this time too.
Seth @ 29
Yes, and this is precisely why no amount of information about the pitfalls of a MOM will deter the “best” Mormons from entering them. In fact, without addressing this theological problem, no amount of experiential data will matter. There’s a good chance that the shared experience of the culture has lead to certain changes (like not thinking of marriage is a “cure”), but arguably, LDS leaders have strategically reasserted the same thing about homosexuality ever since they started talking about it in the 1940s. They just use nicer words now. “Abomination” only comes up if you really push them on a certain point.
re 36,
Alan,
It seems to me though that in this kind of discussion, you’d have to make the case as to WHY the two should be separated. Can they really be cleanly separated?
The fact is we definitely SHOULD be looking at how things work together — when they are interrelated. I haven’t heard of that as being rude before.
If, for example, we are going to make a monolithic “white woman” perspective, then that monolith surely is a different perspective than the monolithic “woman of color” perspective. To say, “Well, let’s focus on the gender oppression and not bicker over the racial oppression/privilege that may interact with that of gender” is problematic. I don’t know a lot about feminism, but I’ve read enough of the huge fallout with feminists of color to sense that it’s a big deal to a lot of people. Because what often happens is if we try to separate the aspect of race and color from the aspect of gender, then we have this strange thing happen where some people will believe that the “woman’s” perspective -> the “white woman’s” perspective.
Earlier, you wrote that you want to “fight all the bad stuff simultaneously” (22). You said that “heterosexism and patriarchy must be attacked simultaneously” (24). It seems to me that in order to do that, then we MUST recognize the way the various “bad stuff” plays with and against each other. Maybe I just don’t get it, but your position would seem more appropriate if you were NOT trying to “fight all the bad stuff simultaneously.” If you want to address just heterosexism, then it seems like you are prioritizing which bad stuff to address when.
I just am unsure of how effective this will be, because the various bad things DO work together.
then we’ll just have to settle for persuading the “less than best” Mormons to give MOMs a miss.
This, of course, is precisely what you have done, Alan. The general discussion is about how the oppression of gay men enables the oppression of straight women, and what gay men can and should do about it. But you come along and say, “Oh, but this is really only about the way gay men are oppressed! And there’s nothing gay men can do to stop what’s done to straight women, because gay men are so oppressed!”
You’re so invested in your own patriarchal privilege that you can complain about a particular behavior and not realize that you are the one and only person engaging in it here.
It just gets richer and richer.
Andrew, perhaps what I say to Holly will help clear it up.
Holly, I agree with you @37, but my concern is that you act like you have a monopoly on it all. If heterosexist thought emerges in a topic having to do with heterosexism/patriarchy/etc, then it isn’t allowed to be explored because you get to decide how the topic is framed.
@40 is a good example. Apparently, this is a “general discussion about how the oppression of gay men enables the oppression of straight women, and what gay men can and should do about it” rather than a whole host of other possible topics, not the least of which are the ways that you have trampled on Invictus’s position.
To the point of “gay men are so oppressed” —
@12, you say, in response to chanson:
In this spirit, this was how I approached the topic.
When it comes to the gay man coming out to a potential wife, there are the particulars of a situation. But there is also a larger heterosexist attitude that gay people (men and women) are “required” to “inform” others of their sexualities, something that straight people don’t have to do. Yes, in a MOM courting situation, it makes sense, and looking at it particularly, it’s good of the gay LDS man or woman to “grow balls,” but in a larger sense, it is part and parcel of a greater problem of minorities having to garner courage to combat the ways they’re oppressed, and if they refuse to pass their given test, they’re deemed lesser than someone who never had to garner the courage to begin with, and worse yet, their failure means that they’re serving the interests of some giant oppressive system. If they’re a gay man, then it’s patriarchy and heterosexism. If they’re a lesbian, then it’s heterosexism (and/or patriarchy). When really, the tests themselves are part of the problems of both patriarchy and heterosexism.
Oh, heavens, Alan. Just because I object to the ways YOU frame discussions doesn’t mean I can’t accept it when someone does a decent job of reframing them.
I don’t feel that anyone at all is required to tell me anything at all about their sexuality–unless they want to sleep with me. In that case, I feel a fair amount of disclosure is due to me, including information about any STDs they might be carrying and so forth. And if a man is sleeping with a lot of other women at that time, or married, or bisexual, or gay, or whatever, I expect him to tell me, and I get pissed if he lies.
So it’s absolutely not just gay men and women who are “required” to “inform” others of their sexuality, and it’s not that straight people don’t have to do it–unless all you mean by “sexuality” is “orientation,” and I would hope you are not that narrow.
Thank you for finally admitting that very basic point, and for abandoning your ridiculous defense of lying about it.
Welcome to the world, and to something some of us have known for a very long time.
Yeah. it sucks. You do your best to live with the way you can’t pass certain tests. the ability to do so is called integrity.
Sure. But the tests are a much greater problem for those most anxious to reap the benefits of patriarchy and heterosexism precisely because they belong to a group membership in which entitles them to the largest share of the said benefits–for instance, gay men who want all the blessings of the Mormon celestial kingdom due to a man (which are much greater than the blessings due to a woman). Such men often feel they can earn said blessings only by marrying a woman, who, in all likelihood, is not going to get what she expects out of her marriage. But too often, for all sorts of reasons, her disappointment is not considered–merely the man’s if HE doesn’t get what he feels is his due.
Watch this:
Then read this (“Ask a Mormon Girl”‘s best advice so far, IMHO).
It is very, very, very easy for a Mormon guy to get the impression that marrying a girl is the most wonderful gift he can give her. It is very, very, very easy gay Mormon boy (especially one who doesn’t understand/accept his sexuality) to think “Well, I’m sacrificing my desires by courting her, but at least I’m giving her the Prince Charming she so badly wants.” Or not to even consider what these young women might want/expect from their marriage.
It is hard to understand/consider another person’s perspective, and it’s hard to rationally analyze common practices that nobody questions or to analyze commandments that you believe are from God.
Yes, exactly. That’s the negative message and experience that gay kids get from the CoJCoL-dS. And it’s the sort of message that can be counteracted with better information. Hearing about other people’s experiences helps give the next generation the tools to understand their situation better, and not fall prey to negative, hateful messages.
Young people of my generation (even sheltered Mormons like me) had at least a vague awareness of homosexuality, and hence had more tools for understanding their situation than earlier generations did. Kids today have to be living in a cave not to be aware of homosexuality, hence are better equipped to analyze their own sexuality (and to reject hateful messages about it) than kids of my generation.
It’s not about telling you that you should have somehow magically figured it all out on your own. Rather it’s with what you know now — with your experience and what you’ve learned — you can help someone else. So that someone else won’t be wandering around in the abyss of “the ME that I always was was a BAD, bad thing,” and lacking the tools to get out.
As for young gay Mormon boys considering courting women: if they hear from even one person the question: “Are you sure that’s fair to her?” then they will think about it. That’s how to eliminate the situation of “I had no idea — it never even occurred to me.”
It’s not about blaming the people who didn’t come up with this question on their own (especially when they had a bunch of confused and negative messages shoved at them). It’s about getting the next generation to think about this question (by presenting it to them).
Then why does it still seem like youre blaming them?
Personally, Ive never thought of marrying a woman. Ive never even dated a woman because I never wanted to; I knew it just wouldnt make sense for either of us. I wanted to date males. I chose not to participate in the LDS system of benefits.
Now, does my story point to me having more integrity or insight than the gay Mormon man who is closeted to his wife and who struggles in a marriage that ultimately ends in divorce? No, people are shaped by their contexts.
Making the whole fiasco about some essential matter in a person (the gay person who needs to think more critically about how his or her gayness could be detrimental to someone else in a culture that already excludes him or her) is wrong-minded. If the gay person lies, well, that is only because telling the truth is perceived as more dangerous.
Im thinking of the 1940s when police raids on gay bars meant a person lost their job, their housing, their status. To say a person has integrity to choose to lose everything doesnt make a whole lot of sense. Integrity is knowing how to work the system. (And yes, this has to be done without stepping on another persons toes.)
It also privileges the future over the present and undermines the voices of young people. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been insulted on here for being “young,” and therefore being told I don’t know what I’m talking about. (I wouldn’t even consider myself all that young.)
@Chanson – #43 – Amen, and amen. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I think your comments are spot on, are insightful, compassionate, and constructive. I totally agree with them; thus, the double amen. Thank you.
I feel like any and all of us are guilty of the phenomenon of “bisexual erasure.” On a fundamental level, the issues are very very similar for bisexual and gay men. But let’s consider this. The church teaches that you struggle with “Same-sex attraction.” Er sorry, it’s same-gender attraction now since they don’t want to emphasize the “sex” part. There is no education on sexuality and therefore no differentiation between bisexual/gay other than statements such as “some people can overcome these attractions.” Bull. Not overcome. Some people were bisexual to begin with.
In regards to the overall topic of the thread, How aware are we of our precise location on the kinsey scale? Does it change over time? Is the kinsey scale even an accurate model when you consider that religion prohibits certain sexual behaviors?
I don’t know, but my point is, sexuality without sexual experience is not as easily definable as you might initially think.
Then the question becomes, Can a bisexual be in a fulfilling relationship with a woman? Well, they should be able to right? It kind of depends I think, on a lot of things. It’s difficult because they are simply told to not engage in the homosexual part of the scale. So you could imagine finding some satisfaction with a straight girlfriend or spouse.
It’s a complicated question, but I think it’s a fairly important one to ask before we make monolithic statements like men shouldn’t enter into a mixed-orientation marriage. Should we all declare our kinsey scale numbers to each other before we date? I’d like to see that happen in a BYU ward!
I’m curious how folks keep from getting really angry at outfits like North Star?
Chanson, a wrong is a wrong because there is someone who acted wrongly, and to not blame someone for a wrong because “they didn’t know” or “didn’t think about it” is a dangerous way of doing politics, IMO. It would be like not blaming white people for black slavery because “they didn’t know any better.”
Holly seems to be of the opinion that we should heap tons of blame on gay men for not thinking about the women they marry. I want to note that I actually have no problem with that. When I went to Sunstone and I met older gay LDS men married to women, and they told me about how they hurt their wives solely by being in the marriage, I was like, “Good grief. How can you not have known going into it?” and I had to step back for a moment, and recognize my homonormative privilege, if you will.
What I’m opposed to is Holly’s proposed solution to the issue: engage in heterosexism in order to resolve patriarchy first, because she seems to have assessed patriarchy to be more foundational than heterosexism, which is terribly wrong, IMO.
The reason I’m talking like this is not to continue to fight with Holly or “win” against her by “outframing” her. It’s because I’m tired of her unconstructive insults hurled at me being allowed to float by, such as the rant @28. =/
Chino @47: North Star is not bad, I think. They’re basically of the Ty Mansfield variety, which is that a person who is gay shouldn’t be expected to change and should be allowed to be “out” publicly in the Church. When it comes to straight wives, they have “Wives Conferences,” which sounds problematic right from the start, but at least it’s a shared space. The website educates people on the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity (bringing some visibility to trans people), rather than conflating the two.
They’re basically doing the best they can do with Mormon doctrine, and I actually think that’s saying a lot. Moreover, they’re interested in gay Mormon culture, meaning that they will post articles written by Michael Quinn even if they think he is opposed to LDS leaders.
I once suggested to one of Affirmation’s leaders that they have more dialogue with North Star, but I’m not sure how seriously the suggestion was taken. =p My understanding is that there are lines of dialogue at the individual level, but nothing on an organizational level.
Not necessarily.
OK, a criticism about moderation. I’m re-reading @28. I can see that it’s criticism that’s leaning in the not-exactly-constructive direction. So, you object to Holly’s claim that you’re not really a feminist (rather just posturing) and to her claim that you think the patriarchy is not so bad…? On the grounds that she speculating about your motives…?
Yes, and I object to the notion that I’m “fine to hold off on fighting patriarchy if doing so benefits gay men” when I was merely critiquing her for her insistence that we put heterosexism on the back-burner for the sake of anti-patriarchy work. I clearly stated they need to work in tandem, a point to which she agreed. But no, she says @28, I “don’t really think this”; rather, I’m “determinedly wrong” because I “exhibit little concern for women,” based on the fact that…I don’t fit into the “20 years [of] successive generations of gay Mormon men” she’s conversed with? O_O That’s more than just a claim of me being anti-feminist and pro-patriarchy; it’s a barrage intended to shut me down as naive.
And that is just one paragraph of it.
Now, I recognize that both of us are stubborn, and more than once we point out each other as pots calling the kettle black. There is some humor and understanding to be found in that. But not enough to ward off the not-exactly-constructiveness.
[bedtime for me, g’night.]
I suppose I might as well point out that if someone is accusing you of acting without regard to the woman you married, and against her interests, and concealing yourself from her – it’s not much of a defense to protest “but the benefits I hoped to gain for ME were really impressive.”
It doesn’t make you any less self-centered, and inconsiderate.
And I should also point out that anyone who thinks that lying is an appropriate way to get to the temple altar, never really understood God, the scriptures, or his religion in the first place.
@51 OK, so (most) everyone is in agreement on the point that heterosexism and patriarchal power structures need to be addressed in tandem. Good.
The point of disagreement seems to be whether everyone is really working towards the two in tandem. Holly claims Alan is only concerned about the former and Alan claims Holly is only concerned about the latter. I agree that debating this point is probably not constructive in either direction.
aerin #14,
I did a bit of digging into your claim that the Mormon temple marriage divorce rate was “very high” – possibly even comparable to the claimed national average of 50%. Apparently you, or whatever source you are quoting simply made the number up.
I found some stats on Mormon marriages here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_divo.htm
The study shows a divorce rate among Mormons in general of 24%, which is comparable to the national average among Americans of 26% (you get the national rates wrong too). And if you have a Mormon marrying a Mormon, the divorce rate drops even further. Mormons marrying within their own church appear to be least likely of all Americans to divorce, reporting a divorce rate within five years of marriage of only 13%.
And yes, this study does factor for Mormon marriages that only end in civil divorce, but never have the temple sealing annulled (a common phenomena that has been discussed on this blog before, I believe). If you look at temple annulment rates, the divorce rate would drop to 6% – but we obviously should not use this figure, given how complex a temple annulment is to get.
But even so, a rate between 13 and 24% ain’t half bad.
A comment from Seth in which I agree with every single word.
thanks.
Chanson @43:
Yes. And I think it is both anti-heterosexist and anti-misogynist to insist on this point, and to tell young gay Mormon men that this thinking is actually quite flawed–and will very likely hurt them and devastate their wives in the long run, as well as make life difficult for any children produced through their attempts at heteronormative marriage.
Alan @19
Alan @24
Alan @26
Alan @48
If you have no problem with that, Alan, why did you repeatedly express all the problems you have with that? How is it constructive or useful or respectful or wise or mature or anything useful or admirable to argue a position you don’t actually hold? How does it make your voice worth listening to? How does it any of us where we want to be?
Alan @24
Alan @36
If you want to attack both of them, why do you separate them?
Alan @44
Is it really? And is this how you think it works?
The second installment in this series of posts is available on my blog here.
Alan
You wrote, “Integrity is knowing how to work the system”
I like reading your perspective, but I think this is complete caca.
Consider green card marriages. I known several people who for various reasons entered into them for their mutual benefit.
But somebody working the system by getting a marriage by pretending sexual attraction is perpetuating fraud against their spouse. While it may get them all sorts of benefits, it still is a betrayal of their mark(i.e. spouse)
And there ain’t no integrity involved.
54-Seth, thanks for looking into the statistics. I appreciate being kept honest.
My assumption that the divorce rate among mormons was similiar to non mormons appears to be correct. There is not a great deal of difference between 24 and 26. I need to look further into the statistics to better understand them. And figure out where I got the fifty percent chance of divorce in the US stat.
Well, keep in mind that rate includes all Mormons – whether married in the temple or not. The figure appears to be much lower for temple-married Mormons.
That said, the reason for this seems to be that temple marriage tends to screen for partners who are similar in values and interests – which tends to increase chances of success in marriage.
I imagine the 50% figure is just a popular figure. I’ve certainly heard it many places informally before. Believed it personally too. I was surprised to read in the study that the rate was as low as 26%. Maybe it’s worth double-checking from other studies.
Holly @ 57:
I’d refer you back to @53, because chanson has stated the problem exactly. My concern is that you privilege patriarchy over heterosexism. And I say that because you’re willing to call out gay men as patriarchical (which is fine), but your answer is to punish (or discipline?) them in heterosexist ways (which is not fine).
Even as early as @19, I’m trying to determine if your answer about how gay men are patriarchal is that they refuse to come out at a time that benefits a straight person. And your answer is, that yes, a gay man is patriarchal because he doesn’t come out when it benefits a straight person. This is not where I see the patriarchy happening. Furthermore, such a framework is a perpetuation of heterosexism. You need to find some other way to frame what is going on and what the solution is.
Yes, women deserve a right to sexual pleasure/emotional happiness. They usually aren’t receiving it in a MoM. But it is ridiculous to say that the only reason a gay man would marry a woman is for “patriarchal” reasons.
American society decided that “sexual attraction” is a sine qua non of marriage, for both men and women, circum the 1920s. Mormonism never admitted this officially until the 1990s. Plenty of men and women marry for reasons other than emotional/sexual compatibility, not the least of them, religious reasons. How about we take a more nuanced approach and talk about exactly how desire, emotionality, sex, happiness, money, power, etc, have functioned in marriages over the course of the 20th century? Then you can get back to me on how gay people need to come out when it benefits straight people.
Where is the lesbian in this discussion? When I talk about “heterosexism,” you assume I’m only referring to “gay men,” that my interest is solely to defend men. You have demonstrated (elsewhere) a tendency to be interested in lesbians’ womenhood over and beyond how they are queer (or other facets). LDS lesbian women often struggle silently in straight marriages. Is this silent struggle “patriarchy” (or as Suzanne puts it @59, “fraud,” or how you’ve put it, “lying”)? No, of course not. So how can it make sense to label a gay man’s struggle “patriarchy,” “fraud” or “lying?”
Because there’s a difference between attacking them simultaneously and conflating them in the interest of one, and you’re doing the latter.
Analogizing the situation of lesbians to that of gay men is always a tricky business since the way women experience same-gender attraction is so different than the way men experience it.
I once attended a lecture by Lisa Diamond who has pioneered a lot of work on women’s same-sex desire. She admitted that the data is lacking when it comes to men who are Kinsey 2s, 3s and 4s. Alex @46 mentions bisexual men, and bisexuality is often a misnomer for sexual fluidity.
I think it’s fine to talk about men and women experiencing desire differently, physiologically (multiple orgasms versus single orgasms, e.g.). But the gender side of things is trickier to make assumptions about.
I have to refer you to IP’s statement (which I agree with):
I know lots of exmo lesbians (single or with other women), but if I can find either a lesbian or a straight man who has been in a lesbian-straight-man MoMOM, believe me you, I will bend over backwards to try to get them to share their experiences about it with us on MSP and in Outer Blogness.
The way women experience sex and the way they are allowed to display affection is also quite different – which creates an entirely different dynamic. Personally, I think unless you are talking about legal rights or something of that nature, lesbians shouldn’t even be classified in the same category as gay men.
Just one example – a lot of the lesbian acting-out is merely due to straight girls who’ve bought into the pop culture notion that making out with another girl is a good way to turn guys on. It’s almost insulting to put women like that in the same category as men like Invictus.
Alan
A Mormon lesbian silently struggling in a marriage to a man because her salvation depends on it, you bet I call it patriarchy.
@65 (Chanson, and others by extension): I am not about to wade into the discussion about lesbians, except (i) to wholeheartedly support Chanson’s desire to hear from the “other side of the MoMoM fence”; and (ii) to highly recommend a documentary about homosexuality among Ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic Jews (in the NYC area as well as Israel) entitled “Trembling Before G-d.” The parallels between the orthodox Jewish culture/religion and Mormonism are striking, and the documentary does a particularly good job, I think, of telling the story of lesbians who are forced (either literally and/or culturally) to marry men and how they cope with it.
Alan
Last time I checked, having a green card marriage also means you’re opposite sex married.
I think deliberately and willfully using someone by intentionally misleading them for your own benefit is way beyond fraud.
And it’s not integrity.
I also recognize that almost all of the people I’ve known who gotten married, for whatever reason, do not fall into that category.
Let me start off by saying that I am an active Mormon who had no sexual attraction to the opposite sex before I met my wife. I was openly gay in my ward and had the support and the approval of the Bishop.
I have seen the problems that have been talked about – men not being forthcoming about their sexuality before marriage and men not even coming to terms with their sexuality before marriage. It is hard to tell someone about something you haven’t come to terms with yourself.
I am very glad that I was open and honest with my wife before marriage. She wasn’t a beard, because I was already out. I married her because I loved her, and felt a strong sexual attraction to her, something I had thought wasn’t possible.
I think it is important to be open and honest about all stories. Almost everyone I talk to with a successful MoMoM have said that honesty and openness is paramount to a successful marriage. But few people have any examples.
Here is the fact of the matter. You are going to have gay men who believe in the church and are going to follow it no matter what people outside of the church say. Saying that you should never get married and live a gay lifestyle simply isn’t going to cut it for many gay Mormons. It simply won’t work.
What needs to happen is for gay Mormons to be taught what they can do to stay true to their convictions about the gospel while still being true to themselves. They need to know they can have a happy and fulfilling life as a single gay man in the church. They also need to know that some people have made marriages work, but that it needs to be founded on openness and honesty, and even then it is no guarantee.
I think by working with gay Mormons within the framework of the gospel you can help prevent them from marrying someone they don’t really love and if they are already married from separating from someone they are married to.
But unfortunately, the only options being presented are those outside the church, and that won’t work, so we go in the closet, a place where no one deserves to be.
Seth R
Do you think your contention is universal?
What about corrective rape?
Straight girls who put on a lesbian performance for men’s pleasure are straight. And I find it insulting to put those women in the same category as lesbians.
@70 – While I agree with much of what you have written – especially the bit about telling “someone about something you havent come to terms with yourself” – I see the situation involving gay Mormons in a different light. I do believe that it is necessary to work within the Gospel construct; however, I very strongly believe that gay Mormons have to be willing to move outside the box that the Church has historically constructed around homosexuality.
I plan to address this in later posts in this series, but the fact of the matter is that the doctrine on the issue of homosexuality is fluid; it has changed over the course of the last 40 years, and it is obvious that the “doctrine” has perhaps more to do with societal values, perceptions and cultural constructs than “revealed truth.” It is obvious that there are differences of opinion, or at least variations of opinion, on the subject among general authorities, even at the highest levels of the church. Even if one believes wholeheartedly that the Church is what it claims to be, the fact of the matter is that it is run by men (i.e., human beings, who also happen to be male), and I – as well as many others – believe that the Church’s position on homosexuality will continue to evolve, particularly after certain members of the Twelve have achieved “emeritus status.”
Suzanne @67: But would it be okay to call her “patriarchal” for being in that position?
Seth: There’s no way to determine the extent to which gay males and lesbians should be conceptualized together or apart. It depends on specifics of what’s being talked about. And I echo Suzanne’s concerns @ 71.
Chanson/Invictus: My sense of the appropriateness of “identity-crossing” is different than yours. There’s a quote from Proust that I think is useful: “The book whose hieroglyphs are not traced by us is the only book that really belongs to us.” This quote was used by Eve Sedgwick (who is a straight woman) to explain how she felt about her books about gay men.
Alan @62
I’m going to assume that this is yet another of what I’m realizing are incredibly frequent instances: moments where you say what you know is false. After all, it’s not just that gay men are coming to out to benefit “a straight person,” but to benefit a WOMAN. I know that you recognize that men have more responsibility to shoulder more of the burden of injustice and inequality in situations like this, as you also wrote
Alan @36
and
Alan @48
Alan @62:
That’s a damn good question, but I’m not the one who needs to answer that. I’ve worked to expand discussions of homosexuality in the church to include lesbians.
And, to match the ridiculousness of his “integrity is knowing how to work the system” gem, let me call attention to this all too typical bit of Alan’s logic:
Alan @62
How indeed can it possibly make sense to label the actions of a man in his relationship with a woman as “patriarchy”?
Wow.
Just wow.
that’s the level of question of Alan asks. He argues points he doesn’t actually agree with, and he seems sincerely to want to someone to tell him how a gay MAN’s treatment of a woman can be labeled patriarchy.
You nailed it, Suzanne: that’s complete caca.
Invictus Pilgrim @72
I do agree that there have been changes, and that the only perfect person was Christ, and hence we are lead by imperfect people. I agree with you there, but I think the changes are more subtle than most people outside the church care to admit. I have read what President Kimball has written, and for the most part, I agree with them. The core of the teachings have always been that there should be no sexual relationships outside of a marriage, which they have always viewed as heterosexual. That part has been consistent since Adam and Eve. Suggestions about how one goes about doing that is up to personal opinion, but the core is the same.
I would argue that most of the changes are actually societies changes on definitions. It used to be that homosexuality was a sexual practice. Homosexuality as a sexual orientation wasn’t really discussed back then. When Kimball said homosexuality can be overcome in a few months, he wasn’t talking about becoming straight because that concept didn’t exist back then. He was talking about not having gay sex.
People say that the church’s position has changed because the vocabulary has changed, not because the doctrine has changed. I do agree that suggestions about dealing with it has changed. I think Kimball was a bit too optimistic about the success rate of MoMoM, but I think you and Holly are a bit too negative, so I don’t see much of a difference.
Holly, I think we’re only proving chanson’s point @53, which is that “Holly claims Alan is only concerned about the former and Alan claims Holly is only concerned about the latter. I agree that debating this point is probably not constructive in either direction.”
I didn’t take her advice, and I tried for more understanding @62, but it didn’t work. So, I’m going to disengage from that direction. I hope you will, too.
Alan — I agree that if you’re sincerely curious about what another’s perspective is like, then identity crossing can yield some important insights. However, in the same vein as @73, you wrote this on an earlier thread:
I can believe that that is “powerful and liberating” for the person doing the writing. But not for the person who is inaccurately portrayed — not for the person whose perspective is overwritten by someone else’s projection.
And folks — some of the earlier discussion was merely borderline on the constructive/not constructive spectrum, but I think that calling someone’s argument “caca” kinda crosses the line.
@A Peculiar Light (#75) – First of all, I have noticed your repeated use (in your two comments) of the phrase “people outside the church.” I am curious as to whether this is purposeful and, if so, why you are using this phrase in the current forum.
The only other comment I’ll make at this point on your follow-up remarks is that I very strongly disagree with your “vocabulary/definition” argument, which (to put it as gently as I can) takes apologetics to new, previously unimagined, heights. As I indicated earlier, I plan to address this in a later post in this series, so I’ll leave it there for now.
Invictus Pilgrim @78
It is a new level of apologetics that needs to taken to. I am a linguist, and I am surprised at how often disagreements are caused by different understandings of the same word. Even today, I listen to one side talk about the gay lifestyle and the other talk about sexual orientation and shake my head wondering when they will realize that they are not talking about the same thing.
I look forward to your upcoming post and ask that you do consider that many members of the church even today define homosexuality as a sexual act, which according to the dictionary is a correct interpretation, but I will wait until your post for further comment.
My main problem is the assumption that MoMoM are doomed to failure, that there is no hope, and they shouldn’t even try. I think that drives people in the closet, and creates the very effect that it is apparently trying to avoid. I do know of a guy who thought that their marriage would never work, tried out homosexuality for awhile, realized that wasn’t what he wanted, and was able to make amends with his wife, and is now happily married, open, fulfilled and everything you could ask for.
My hope by coming to this blog is to discuss how we can help gay Mormons who want to follow the gospel to not marry someone that they don’t really love. I think everyone can agree that would be a good thing.
chanson @77:
In that same comment, I also stated that female projections of gay male sexuality are not overwriting my experience as a gay male; they are complementing it. No one has a monopoly on a given identity, even people who occupy it. Please don’t take that to mean that I’m calling for people being allowed to disrespect each other, or speak for others, particularly underrepresented voices. I’m just saying that paralyzing ourselves in such a way that we have to go “seek out” the minority voice in order to fill in a blank in our heads, is a problem unto itself.
I don’t know Suzanne. What about corrective rape? You tell me where you are going with that topic.
APL #75 “When Kimball said homosexuality can be overcome in a few months, he wasnt talking about becoming straight because that concept didnt exist back then. He was talking about not having gay sex.” Not according to my friend who had counseled with Elder/President Kimball. He said that the gays, out of deference to Kimball’s position reported overcoming homosexual tendencies. That led Elder Kimball to conclude that the sexual orientation could be changed. My friend said that none of the gays he knew with whom Kimball had worked had changed at all.
Parker #82
I would like to hear more about what Kimball said to your friend. I did not have the privilege of counseling with him, so I would like to learn more. What was Kimball’s understanding of sexual orientation? I ask that because even today people use it as if they know what sexual orientation means, even though they don’t. Sexual orientation is much more than simply sex, yet from everything I have ever read from Kimball, his focus seems to be the law of chastity.
He often talked about curing homosexuality (which was considered a mental illness at the time and hence appropriate vocabulary for the day), but he also said “We realize that the cure is no more permanent than the individual makes it so and is like the cure for alcoholism subject to continued vigilance.”
If he thought people changed sexual orientation, why the need for this vigilance? I mean, if I were able to turn from gay to straight then a gay bar would have no appeal to me, so why bother being vigilant? People who stop being alcoholic don’t all of a sudden get a buzz out of water.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Feelings_versus_acts#1980
Currently the APA gives this definition of sexual orientation:
Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.
Using the second definition, sexual orientation is easily changeable by changing your sense of identity, related behaviors, and membership in a community. By the second definition, I was never gay, but merely a heterosexual man having a homosexual experience. That is the APA today.
Chanson @65:
I know several women and one man who’ve been in a lesbian-straight-man MoMOM, and contacted a couple earlier today to see if any of them would be willing to blog about it here. One woman has agreed, so Chanson, I’m going to pass your contact info on to her.
Holly @84:
Here is one story about a woman and a man in a MoMOM, where the woman is attracted to other women.
http://northstarlds.org/directors_2009-03.php
http://northstarlds.org/directors_2010-09.php
I also know a couple more, but most aren’t as public until things go awry.
I really didn’t cross examine my friend. I may not have used the exact words he used, but I think I captured his intended meaning. It sounded like collusion to me. President Kimball wanted to believe they had changed, and they didn’t want to disappoint him.
Parker @86
That makes sense. We all see life through the lenses we choose to put on. It wouldn’t surprise me that Elder Kimball was wanting to see the results so badly that he pressured people to give him the results he wanted. Then on the other hand, if everyone gave him the results he expected, why would he suspect that he was wrong? He could only judge based on the evidence at hand.
But my point is that even the word like “change” is so packed. My attractions for men have definitely changed, not from gay to straight, but in intensity. Part of that comes with age. I’m not as excitable as I was when I was younger. Part has to do with circumstance. I developed a sexual attraction for my wife after courting for a while. It didn’t come naturally. What do you mean by change? Do I have to turned on by straight pornography? I don’t think that was what Kimball wanted, but it seems to be what a lot of people expect.
If the APA can’t give a concise definition, which is still around to answer questions, how can we possibly assign a meaning to someone who is dead and gone?
APL: Kimball dismissed the concept of homosexual orientation. You’re right that he didn’t think a person “became straight.” But that’s because he figured a person was “naturally straight” and that s/he just goes awry with having homosexual lust. The “sin” of homosexuality, for Kimball, included having homosexual feelings.
There’s a three-tier distinction that many Mormon therapists use today. “Homosexual feelings,” “homosexual actions,” and “homosexual orientation.” The most conservative therapists (such as Dean Byrd) dismiss “homosexual orientation” no matter how much “homosexual feelings” encompass one’s sexual being. And the reason for this is because they believe that if you give people the concept of “orientation,” then what will follow is that you must eventually give them the right to act on their orientation.
Dallin Oaks wrote a memo to Church leaders in the 1980s that basically argued the same thing, a warning that gay activists use “orientation” to form themselves in society as a “minority.”
Moderate therapists today aren’t so homophobic. They, like I suspect you would claim, say a homosexual orientation is fine, so long as you don’t act on it. The Church itself has used the word “orientation,” I think for the first time last year after that string of suicides by gay youth, and when the Human Rights Campaign petitioned the Church over Packer’s GC comments. So, “orientation” is a matter of American vernacular that the Church simply cannot avoid.
Basically, the change in the Church over the last half-century is the following: it used to be that homosexual feelings and actions were considered sinful. Now, homosexual feelings are considered to be a temptation toward sin, but are not sinful in themselves.
Personally, I think the distinction is silly and serves the sole purpose of maintaining a culture of compulsive heterosexuality, notwithstanding however much people in MoMs love each other and function as couples. But then, I’m not an active Mormon. =)
Alan @ 88 said “Now, homosexual feelings are considered to be a temptation toward sin, but are not sinful in themselves.”
I disagree. It has always been taught that sexual feelings can and should be controlled. Even today the church says “We can determine now that we will never do anything outside of marriage to arouse the powerful emotions that must be expressed only in marriage.” Even back in biblical times, Jesus taught against heterosexual feelings when he said that a man shouldn’t lust after a woman. When I went into the MTC, I received a pamphlet about locking my heart and surpressing all sexual attraction. I don’t see any evidence that the church is now saying it is okay to arouse sexual feelings outside of marriage.
Elder Oaks just gave a great talk about controlling your desires. http://lds.org/general-conference/2011/04/desire?lang=eng The talk applies to everyone. Homosexual desires can and should be overcome just like heterosexual desires can and should be overcome before marriage. Doesn’t mean straight men aren’t supposed to find women attractive, but they have to overcome that desire so they don’t break the law of chastity. I’m not seeing any retreat on the idea that sexual feelings are just a temptation and we can feel free to arouse them if we feel like it.
I think the world’s view of sexual orientation more closely aligns with what type of sexual temptation we are faced with, rather than what sexual feelings we choose to arouse. I am more often aroused by my wife than anyone else because that is who I choose to be aroused by.
I think Kimball best describes the current position of the church.
“Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that ones background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future.”
Let us now praise all men who can chose the stimulus (i.e. the person) that evokes a biological response.
I wasn’t talking about “arousing” sexual feelings. I was talking about the presence of them. Sexual feelings emerge at puberty. So, to say that all sexual feelings must manifest in marriage, means either (A) the Church is anti-human, (B) it advocates for people to get married at puberty, (C) you’re taking this a little too seriously.
Although, the fact that Mormon boys have been known to kill themselves over guilt from masturbating makes me wonder if there isn’t an anti-human streak.
I think we hit on an important distinction between lusting after someone, which has been condemned since Jesus’ time, and simply being a sexual being. I think being a sexual being is what Kimball was talking about when he said “Temptations come to all people”. It seems from what I have read of Kimball he understood what is meant by being a sexual being and was okay with it. He even advocated being aware of those sexual feelings and the need for “constant vigilance”. Again if a fully “cured” homosexual no longer had the presence of sexual feelings, why would Kimball feel the need that they kept their sexual feelings under constant vigilance? If he was advocating for the removal of sexual feelings, as you suggest he was, how could you keep a constant vigilance over something you don’t have?
The stance seems consistent, everyone has sexual feelings, but don’t arouse them outside of marriage. All I am saying is that it doesn’t seem to be that big of a change.
My understanding is that lust is wrong because of the way it relates to possessiveness. Admiring beauty is fine, but wanting to possess it is wrong. Now, read this way, Jesus’ condemnation of lust isn’t about universals of how and where and why and with whom sex and desire should take place, but the way in which we might respect each other.
Have you read where Kimball talks about the proper ways of behaving sexually inside of marriage? Anything but vaginal sex was forbidden, because of a belief that our “sexual feelings” are for solely for reproduction. Lust for one’s spouse was forbidden. This, I think, is a terrible manipulation of what Jesus meant, and Mormons are only beginning to come out of that attitude.
In terms of Kimball and the “removal of homosexual feelings,” I’ll have to think on that more. I see what you’re saying.
Alan
In regards, to your #73, is she patriarchal?
I would say that depends on whether she calls him out of the grave.
It is my understanding, that in the temple, the wife hearkens to the husband, but the husband doesn’t to the wife.
And D&C 132 reads to me like it’s all about women being given to and taken from men and the function of women is to bear the souls of men.
I think things should be examined through the lens of heterosexism, but what also should be considered is the power dynamics in the process of exaltation.
But to move from Mormondom and on to California(which is a community property State)
I think people entering into a committed intimate and/or legal relationship are obligated, whatever the issues, to honestly explain their situation or situations as they understand it. People need to make informed consent.
To put it on a more personal level, When I was hanging out with the person I ended up marrying, I didn’t mention I was Mormon.
But before we jumped the figurative broom, we discussed my mormonness and that she would have very displeased in-laws.
And in retrospect, neither one of us knew what that meant.
@88 – Alan: I concur completely with this summary statement.
@A Peculiar Light – The more I read what you have written, the more I am led to wonder just how much you have delved into the history of the evolution of GA pronouncements on homosexuality over the past 40-50 years.
There is absolutely no question that Spencer W. Kimball considered homosexual feelings/orientation/attractions to be sinful in and of themselves. Have you read Boyd K. Packer’s 1976 talk “To Young Men Only,” or his 1978 talk “To the One”? Have you read what Mark E. Peterson had to say on the subject of homosexuality? Have you read this document? Or have you read this famous letter?
I’m sorry, but I have felt a growing, very strong reaction to your comments, which have the effect of minimizing what for generations of Mormon men were deeply significant statements and teachings – teachings that altered their lives; teachings which conveyed that to have same sex attractions was sinful, dirty and (to use Packer’s recent phrase) “impure and unnatural.” I know – I lived through that era. I was there.
So to read statements such as yours, it’s the height of apologetics: whitewashing. Denial of what really happened; what was really said. It’s deeply disturbing. Do you think that BYU conducted those electric shock therapy sessions because only homosexual *acts* were viewed as wrong? No! They conducted those sessions to try to condition responses to erotic male images. They were trying to kill same-sex attraction in their victims.
To advance a theory now that the Church didn’t really teach what it did in fact teach, that it was all semantics, minimizes the trauma that countless men went through and are still feeling the effects of. It relieves the Church of responsibility for what it did, and it relieves the modern thinking member of the Church of responsibility for contemplating WHY the “doctrine” has changed so significantly over the past few decades in a church that claims for itself the benefit of continuous revelation from God himself.
The guy who says “it’s all crap” is just as guilty of distortion as the guy who says “it’s all roses.”
That’s very noble of you to see it that way. However, you have to keep in mind that people born into privilege (like you and me) have a lot of opportunity to have our voices heard. Just because you see additional voices as “complementary”, I wouldn’t expect others to necessarily see it the same way.
If you want to advocate for other groups, then you need to be interested in actually learning about their perspective and experiences. I think that your contention that it’s wonderful for people to write an unfamiliar POV and not even care if they get it right or not is highly problematic.
I think that those of us (like you and me) who have privilege-amplified voices absolutely have a responsibility to seek out those underrepresented voices. I think we need to have the humility to understand that there are answers we won’t find by digging in our own heads — rather there are things we learn by making an effort to listen to others.
Seek and ye shall find!!
To Holly @84 and others who have emailed me contact info for people in lesbian-straight-man MoMOMs — Thank you!!
It looks like we may have some bites. Stay tuned!
Chanson, I think we’re speaking past each other. Perhaps I can make my basic point through an example. Let’s say we want to know what it’s like to be an Asian-American living in Central Texas, because somehow that subjectivity crops up as important in our discussion. We tell ourselves, “We have no idea what it’s like to be an Asian-American living in Central Texas. Let’s go find someone!” (as opposed to conjecturing endlessly). Then, if this someone speaks, we all listen humbly and perhaps get questions answered. But the questions were our questions. The lack of knowledge was our lack of knowledge. There’s already a kind of selfishness at play. I’m merely pointing to this selfishness, to make sure it’s not mistaken for absolute humility.
Yes, privileged people’s voices are loud. But so are their quests to seek out underrepresented voices, and to create stages for those voices. Oftentimes an underrepresented voice will walk off the stage because of how they’ve been “put on stage.”
I’m just trying to show concern for people I haven’t met.
Alan — I don’t think we’re talking past each other, I think we simply disagree.
I am totally OK with admitting that my questions are my questions, that my curiosity is my curiosity, and that my ignorance is my ignorance. I don’t think it’s patronizing to say to someone “You know stuff I don’t know; I would like to listen to you and learn.” And it’s only selfish in the sense that I’m admitting I have the privilege and opportunity to sit around learning new things (as opposed to, say, working in a sweatshop all day).
First of all, I’m not talking about “creating a stage”, I’m talking about listening. I’m talking about feeling curiosity and wanting to learn stuff.
Secondly, when discussing a given subject, I am totally OK with listening more to someone who knows something about that subject instead of listening to someone who doesn’t know anything about the subject (and doesn’t care that they don’t know anything about the subject).
Here at Main Street Plaza, I have put in years of work to “create a stage”. But I didn’t do it to patronizingly place minorities on it. I want to hear all perspectives — as many different perspectives as I can find. And by that, I don’t mean that I’m chalking off a checklist of types of minorities that I’m trying to find representatives of. Gender/Race/Nationality/Orientation aren’t the only ways people can have interesting different experiences and perspectives. And I think we can all learn from each other.
I agree that feeling curiosity and wanting to learn is probably the foundational aspect of social justice. And I trust your ability to employ this curiosity with kindness, respect and responsibility.
Still, your stance conjures for me a dialogue such as the following:
“You know stuff I dont know. I would like to listen to you and learn.”
“Why?”
“Because I want to hear about as many different perspectives as I can.”
“Well, go find someone else to teach you theirs.”
Not that this would be a categorical response. But I suspect it would be a common one if the person wanting to do the listening and learning had a good deal of power over the person doing the potential teaching.
Yes, that’s true. For any given person you meet, it’s not that person’s responsibility to educate you.
That said, it’s not necessary to thrust that responsibility on those who don’t want it. And the fact that there exist people who don’t want to spend their time educating you isn’t an excuse for embracing ignorance or claiming that you have no choice but to speculate. For any given subject, it’s not at all difficult to find people who know a lot about it, and who are actively writing and publishing about it.
Suzanne @ 94
Certainly. But my main contention here has been that if you conflate heterosexism with patriarchy (or employ one as a tool to fight the other), then you can vanquish neither.
Chanson @ 102
I hope you recognize that I never claimed this.
On an online forum such as MSP, speculation plays a role in bringing new people to the table. Note how Chino brought up North Star in this thread; I elaborated on North Star (even though I am not part of that organization), and lo and behold, someone active with North Star showed up: “A peculiar light” (which I assumed he was with North Star because of his perspective, and he confirmed my suspicions when he linked to the North Star site). I believe his perspective is extremely valuable here, even if it is offensive and troubling for some of us.
On that notorious lesbian thread, when I “speculated” about Asian women, lo and behold, Pinay showed up (who I would propose to if we weren’t both gay =p). These are not just coincidences. If you talk about things outside of your own positionality, if you “speculate” in a respectful way, you are inviting others to the table.
I hope you’re not claiming this. It’s just that statements like the following make me a little worried:
and
(Particularly the point about not considering accuracy to be important.)
I’m totally OK with speculation. I do it all the time. I just think it’s important to recognize that it’s speculation, and to recognize that it’s not going to give you the whole story. It can yield some interesting results, but they will likely be colored by bias, and you need to work with sources outside your own head to compensate for that bias.
I was under the impression that Pinay is someone you know personally, and she showed up because you mentioned the thread to her. Is that not true…?
I have to tell you (since you were commenting about moderation earlier): I really don’t appreciate people showing up exclusively for drama threads to participate in and exacerbate the fighting. That is true regardless of the person’s gender/race/orientation/nationality, etc.
It’s one thing to come here regularly, and participate in constructive discussions, and then occasionally get angry at the other regulars. It is another thing to show up out of the blue just to tell people off. As I said, this isn’t the Jerry Springer Show where the attraction is the fun of everybody yelling at each other. For our system of not banning and deleting to work, that relies on making a good faith effort to keep it civil and constructive.
p.s. I’m not singling your friend out by saying this — I’ve said the same thing to Kaimi and others.
The third installment in this series, which tells my own story and expresses my own mea culpa, is posted here.
Indeed. This imaginative project, along with Craig’s attendant contempt for “data,” conjures nothing so much as an image of eight or so white guys dressed in white pants, shirts and ties, secure in the powerful, liberating, data-free vision they’ve imagined for themselves of the people they’re about to baptize, singing, “Africans are African, but we are Africa.” http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=136054170&m=136021915
Of course, part of what makes Parker’s and Stone’s portrayal of young arrogant Mormon men so powerful and moving is that they don’t show contempt for data. They did loads and loads of research and fact-checking, and they understand and value the difference between metaphor and fact.
I thought we weren’t going to argue this any more. Because my contention, Craig, is that YOU are using your own patriarchal assumptions and misogynist attitudes as tools for fighting heterosexism.
I suppose this is as good a time as any to point out that patriarchy and misogyny have more victims than heterosexism. There are far more women in the world than there are members of the LGBT community. Furthermore, as you point of repeatedly, Craig, gay people don’t have to tell others about their gayness. But women can’t avoid announcing their womenness, just by moving through the world.
And there are also enough gay men in the world who admit, either readily or when pressed, that they enjoy all sorts of privileges that women do not, and that they’re actually better off than most if not all women of their same class. Many gay men who identify as feminists feel that women’s rights are a much more pressing issue than gay rights, but they also recognize that it’s likely that gay men will achieve equality and parity before women of any category do–precisely because gay men start from a position of greater power and privilege.
I’m concerned that my earlier statements about sexuality being flexible could be misinterpreted. I confess my ignorance about much of the theory out there. But it seems willfully ignorant to use queer theory about changing sexuality and re-imagining sexuality and relationships to mean that each person and couple can return to a narrow box of one man one woman marriage, with certain types of sexuality even within that marriage as verboten. To my mind, that is misreading those concepts and ideas. It reminds me of trying to defend a faith and belief system like mormonism with post modernism. The concepts are incompatible.
I wanted to speak to alan and chanson’s discussion earlier (can’t see the comment number on my phone). I agree in finding and exploring different perspectives and voices, particularly traditionally voiceless populations. I disagree with “tokenizing” a person, however. By token I mean suggesting that one person from a minority group can speak for the entire experience and feelings of that group. That’s impossible, to my mind. Which is why I agree with chanson’s charge to find a variety of voices and perspectives. But such voices should not be expected to speak for their entire minority groups….I highly doubt I could speak for all women, all former mormon women, all mothers, etc. It would be presumptuous to do so IMO.
aerin @108
Good point.
to elaborate on that point, to use queer theory to argue that gay Mormon men don’t really need come out to the Mormon women they court, propose to and marry in traditional Mormon marriages because gay men shouldn’t have to come out to “benefit straight people,” is to exploit queer theory to support and prop up a system of marriage it’s fundamentally incompatible with.
Craig’s position is both incoherent and harmful. It doesn’t fight either patriarchy OR heterosexism. It just uses new ideas to prop up an old status quo that damages most everyone.
Chanson @ 104:
Why would you assume that I know her personally?
It was suggested on the thread. Once the fight had passed the point of no return, I didn’t read it that closely.
Are you saying that you don’t know her personally?
Anyway, it was unfortunate that her introduction to MSP was confined to an ugly fight thread. I think it would be interesting to have a friendly exchange of ideas with her, but that becomes very difficult when the conversation starts off on the wrong foot. Not impossible, but difficult.
When she was here, I suggested that she peruse some of our more reasonable threads to get to know us better, but I haven’t seen her back. And I don’t blame her. If she’d arrived on a normal thread, she’d have had more opportunity to see what a welcoming place MSP can be.
Who’s Craig? Did Alan become Craig?
I was trying to imagine what it would be like to be someone who thinks like Alan, and part of what I came up with is that he’d be named Craig. I didn’t figure I’d need to explain that to anyone, because the discovery was so liberating and powerful.
p.s. Are you suggesting, Chanson, that I should be more trusting of data–such as what Craig/Alan calls himself–and let it trump my own imaginative musings?
@114 On principle, yes. Though in this case Alan specifically stated that he was OK with complementary (if inaccurate) portrayal. Probably he didn’t mean it in quite this way.
She didn’t arrive on that thread; she stated that she sometimes reads this site, and on that thread she felt compelled to speak.
She tried to engage with the white women on the thread, and ultimately felt her perspective would not be respected. Perhaps you should re-evaluate the notion of her “seeing what a welcoming place MSP can be.”
I don’t mean to be cynical. I mean to be realistic. Take, for example, your first comment to her:
It’s curious the way you deploy the word “women” here. You acknowledge that this is a shared space, owned by no one, yet you bring up “the women who helped build this community,” in effect, discounting Pinay’s opinion as someone, a woman, attempting to be part of the community. I read this as a very “white” behavior.
And as the conversation continued, the white tidal wave Pinay was subjected to was horrendous.
Making MSP a safer and more welcoming space seems evermore a daunting task.
I’m not saying I should get a gold star. I’m saying that I’m upset that she was pushed away. I shouldn’t have to divulge this, but my partner and his family are immigrants from the Philippines. Perhaps that’s why you or whoever else thought Pinay and I knew each other. But the point is, I don’t really consider MSP to be a particularly welcoming place. I consider a lot of viewpoints to flow through here, which makes it an interesting space, but that’s different.
OK, well, in her initial comments to me, she said she thought I might ban her for her opening comment. To me, that says she knows very nearly zero about this site.
I consider myself a servant of this community, and — as (I think) I stated on that thread — I regret that I did a terrible job of keeping my own tone neutral. I sincerely want this to be a welcoming community. Thank you for your critique, I will think about what you have said here.
Why on earth should the fact that you’re both gay make the slightest difference? Why should you not propose to AND marry AND have sex with AND bear children with Pinay? After all, you’re both gay–an important commonality. Furthermore, you wrote @62
Why should you and Pinay not be two such people?
Or are you affirming that however many other reasons “plenty of men and women marry for,” mutually compatible sexuality is so crucial these days that it tends to trump all such other reasons?
Whether you are willing and able to admit it, I think most everyone else here can see that that is precisely what you are affirming.
p.s. I hope you also realize that by writing that you “would propose to [Pinay} if [you] weren’t both gay” rather than something like, “I wish Pinay would propose to me,” you are invoking and exploiting the patriarchal authority and agency in courtship you hold as a man and the traditional pursuer and actor in such matters.
Holly, trying to tell the gay advocacy movement that the world is not “100% sex” is an exercise in futility.
Reminds me of the little ditty (sung to the tune “If You’re Happy and You Know It”:
“If it’s longer than it’s wide, then it’s phallic
If it’s longer than it’s wide, then it’s phallic
If it’s not longer than it’s wide, then you turn it on its side
Now it’s longer than it’s wide – so it’s phallic.”
@119 – Seth: Excuse me, ditty aside, would you care to define just exactly what you mean when you use the term “gay advocacy movement”?
@118 OK, you can see that Alan is upset, and now you’re just taunting him. Give him a break, please.
It’s a dumb catch-all phrase with poorly thought-out parameters that probably doesn’t apply to at least a few people I know. Kind of like “TBM” or “anti-Mormon” or “cultist” or “chapel Mormon” or “liberal.” But used anyway as a way to save time on a throwaway comment.
But there are some serious observations behind, the superficial lingo.
@121 When I sat down to write my comment @118, the last comment posted was @115. I hadn’t seen @116, or @117.
I’m sorry for the timing, but I think my points in @118 are extremely valid.
OK, I know how these cross-posting things go. But give him a break now. 😉
@122 – Thank you for your clarifying comments about an offensive comment applied to an extremely large and diverse group of individuals across this nation and the globe. One example: I recently had the opportunity to meet Rev. Jimmy Creech and to read his newly-published book, Adam’s Gift (which I highly recommend and about which I plan/hope to blog).
Creech is a straight, former Methodist mininster who has been part of the “gay advocacy movement” for over 25 years and was twice put on trial by the Methodist Church for performing “holy unions” between same-sex couples. At the second trial, he was summarily “defrocked” and forbidden to serve as a pastor in the United Methodist Church. He is a pioneer of a movement within North American Christianity (at least some parts of it) that is increasingly coming to see anti-LGBT policies as immoral, in much the same light as church sanction of racial discrimination and slavery were immoral. (Imagine! What a concept!)
So, when I consider someone like him, as well as many others, and then read your comment, I wanted to seek clarification as to whether you actually meant what you wrote.
@108 Aerin
I think this is precisely the trouble that occurs, when you take the concepts of queer theory and bend them to fit the church and the heteronormative pattern. Evergreen has gotten complaints from researchers who misuse their information for their own means (digs through brain, I’ll have to get back on this one.) But for example, Evergreen takes a concept like bisexuality or fluidity and bends it into a promise like “people can change.” Well duh. People do change. But that doesn’t mean that playing baseball with the guys is what did it! Or any of the other various “reparative” techniques.
That being said why is it wrong for a bisexual man or woman to be married to a straight spouse? I don’t think it is. I think there will be problems in the relationship. But since people aren’t really in two categories (homosexual/heterosexual) it seems like every marriage is theoretically a “Mixed Orientation Marriage.”
I’m open for discussion or debate on this, but saying MOM is always wrong makes me feel uncomfortable.
What is wrong with the set up is that living the church plan, you aren’t able to explore your sexuality. Even as two straight people the church discourages healthy exploration of sexuality. It’s general patriarchal (the women needs to have sex with the man to fulfill his needs), it’s victorian. Luckily the church got out of the business of proscribing what is and isn’t appropriate behavior, at least to married couples.
I believe Foucault would have a lot to say about why the church does that.
This is I think the bigger issue.
I don’t have a personal stake in this question, but I wouldn’t say that an MOM is always wrong. And I agree with you that bisexuality complicates the question.
Personally, I would just encourage people to think about their own best interests and others’ best interests when making big decisions. Don’t just get swept up on a wave of others’ expectations. (This applies to similar decisions also, like when/whether to have another kid.) I absolutely don’t expect everyone’s answers to such life-planning questions to be the same.
I’m not willing to say that MOM is always wrong, and even if I were, I don’t think we’d be able to prevent it entirely from happening.
I just think we should do what we can to educate people so that they’ll think more carefully about whether a MOM will make them or their partner happy, and, if they do choose to enter a MOM, have a somewhat clearer idea of the challenges they’ll face.
Invictus @95:
I know the church hasn’t always completely understood everything. I know they have made mistakes, but apologetic work becomes really easy when the attackers go overboard. Kimball didn’t understand everything about homosexuality. Not everything he said was spot on, but he isn’t guilty of half of the stuff you accuse him of.
Now I didn’t live in his time, so I don’t know how it was back then, but I was alive for Elder Packer’s talk. I listened to him and I know you are not interpreting it correctly.
The “impure and unnatural” applied just as much to heterosexual as homosexuals. Same-sex attraction was NEVER even mentioned in his talk. His example was of a heterosexual married man looking at porn. A more in depth analysis can be found here:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Boyd_K._Packer_October_2010_conference_talk
The letters you referenced show that there are people who misinterpreted Kimball back then just as the news reports show people misinterpreted Packer now. I have no doubt that many people, including many bishops counseling gay men to get married, misinterpret many comments.
But that is what happens with terms that everyone “knows” but is so ill-defined.
@129: The following was the statement I made about President Kimball:
Which half of this sentence was he (not) guilty of?
In response to your comment that you “know” that I have not interpreted Packer’s talk correctly (as well as your other comments), I will simply say this (for there is nothing else to be said): There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I think he was very clear in the quote I gave that he said it was no sin to be tempted, but the sin was in entertaining the ideas. Put whatever label you want on it, I agree with the essence of what Kimball was saying. If sexual orientation is more than being tempted, but “also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, related behaviors, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions” as the APA has defined sexual orientation, then I 100% agree with Kimball that homosexual orientation can be changed.
I guess there is no reason to have a conversation if one side says I am so obviously right that I won’t even respond to your arguments why you think you are right. I have brought up several quotes and reasons, and you haven’t responded to them, so I guess you are right. There is nothing more to say..
Invictus, for all I know, my comment might actually apply to Creech.
Alex @ 126
I would put it this way instead: Since every person is different, every marriage has two orientations in it.
If we start to think about how every marriage has two orientations, then we’ll stop trying to suggest that the answer to educating people about the pitfalls of MoMs is as simple as suggesting, asking or requiring people to be more forthcoming sexuality-wise prior to marriage.
This is especially true since we live in an era now where people are already forthcoming before marriage and will thus likely experience a different set of marital pitfalls.
For example, clinicians who’ve studied MoM have laid out a 7-year cycle, following the path of Humiliation, Honeymoon, Rage, and Resolution, where the gay spouse becomes “gradually gay.” But this cycle only applies to MoMs where the gay spouse was closeted at the beginning of the marriage. What does the marriage look like for people who are forthcoming? Insisting on a “failure” or “close to failure” scenario for MoMs will keep us blind to those that aren’t failed, and will serve to further limit the resources made available for a group of people who already have a limited set of resources.
@131
You apparently do not realize that you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing.
I referred you to material that shaped a generation of Mormon men, and your response was: “The letters you referenced show that there are people who misinterpreted Kimball back then just as the news reports show people misinterpreted Packer now.” Hello?
I referred you to two talks given by Elder Packer in the 1970’s. You didn’t comment on them.
Ignoring the outcry of hundreds and thousands of members and non-members of the Church following Packer’s October conference address, you simply say: “You misinterpreted what he said.”
You’re right: there is no reason to have a conversation. You will continue to believe what you want to believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary. I wish you well on the journey that you are on.
@132 – “Their own words condemn them …”
APL @ 131
Okay, yes, the APA does use a phrase called “sexual orientation identity,” and it is used because of the homophobic aversion to the “gay identity” in society where people who are Kinsey 6’s refuse to be considered “gay,” and instead call themselves “straight,” “ex-gay,” same-gender attracted heterosexually-performing,” “spouse-attracted” or whatever.
If your concern is us speaking or thinking badly about President Kimball because you hold him as a “prophet,” then say that, instead of going around the bush about what he said or did not say and how it applies to today even though he said it decades ago.
What apl is referring to is precisely why I believe that the “Miracle of Forgiveness” needs to be officially repudiated as Kimball’s opinion, and not doctrine. This book, for those who weren’t aware, also suggests a rape victim would be better off dead, and is responsible for rape.
How many more suicides and suicide attempts does the LDS church need before this book is officially denounced.
I know we’ve discussed this before, but clearly the “Kimball was speaking as a man and not from God” message has not circulated enough through the everyday masses.
@137 – Aerin, I agree. That book continues, even now, to rip people’s guts out. I know of a young missionary who came home early from his mission with severe depression and almost killed himself. His parents were blindsided, aghast, horrified. About six weeks before coming home, the elder had written home that he was reading that book. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
I’ve never heard anyone yet make a really convincing argument that Kimball’s book caused or significantly contributed to the suicide of anyone who wasn’t already in the mood to kill him or herself for other factors.
I mentioned earlier that I don’t like emotional manipulation. Playing the suicide card is usually one of the biggest culprits in naked bids at emotional manipulation by people who aren’t interested in having a reasonable conversation of the issues.
@139 – Perhaps when it happens to someone close to you and you have actually lived through it, instead of merely making cynical comments about it, you’ll feel differently.
Or you know what Invictus – maybe I wouldn’t be in the mood to turn their death into a weapon on a lousy Internet debate.
Maybe I would also have enough respect for the person to NOT make assumptions about what did or did not lead to their decision-making.
@141 – I wasn’t using it as a “weapon,” – which I think says more about you than me – and I wasn’t making assumptions. End of story.
Good, then can I take that as a declaration that we have no clue what the correlation is between Kimball’s book and the suicide rate of homosexual Mormon males, or is there additional data available?
Seth, perhaps you might find informative what I’ve written on the subject in my Dialogue essay:
@Alan – Is your essay available online?
BTW, contrary to the assumption that was made, the missionary I referred to earlier was not struggling homosexuality, but with other “worthiness issues” concerning which Kimball also had much to say.
I was too – while on my mission when I first read Kimball’s book.
Which contributes to gay suicide more? Elder Packer telling a story about how a straight man looking at naked pictures of women hurt his relationships with his wife, or a bunch of sound bits that somehow “God didn’t make you that way” had nothing to do with pornography and were about changing your sexual orientation and even though the example was of specifically about a straight man it only applied to homosexuals.
It is the misinterpretation, the claims that Mormons hate gays, that Packer wants you to change your sexual orientation, that Kimball was talking about the modern definition of sexual orientation well before psychologists got around to defining it that leads to gay suicide. Never mind that Kimball said it is no sin to be tempted. Never mind that Packer said you may never be able to change your sexual orientation in this life so don’t feel bad if you don’t. People hear sound bites, and misquoting them loses the message.
You tell Mormons enough times they hate gays they are going to believe you. You tell gay Mormons enough times that Packer thinks they need to change their sexual orientation (even though he was clear the opposite was true) they are going to believe you.
Don’t blame the leaders for other people misquoting them.
I’m about to get personal. Because all of this is personal.
1st, In regards to The Miracle of Forgiveness. I read it and everything the church had available in the year 2000-2001 when I first realized I was gay. I have never felt suicidal before or since, but I thought about killing myself.
Yes this is anecdotal evidence, but it’s my life. In a sense I don’t really care what you say he was trying to say, the message that came across is “it’s better to hang a millstone around your neck and drown at the bottom of the sea” than be gay.
So it’s not hard for me to link suicides with the miracle of forgiveness.
I prayed when I was 17, when I was thinking seriously about suicide. I remember I was completely desperate at this point. I got up from the prayer and realized/heard a voice, “it’s ok to be gay.”
It is.
In regards to Elder Packer, notice the changes in the talk. “Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?” It doesn’t take a ph.d in linguistics to link tendencies, especially inborn tendencies, with homosexuality. It was changed to temptations to “clarify” his intent. Thank God. But he still said it over the pulpit in General Conference.
Next,
Alan you should e-mail me that research. I’d be very interested.
As I said this is personal. I’m living this thread. I’m totally and completely biased because I am a gay man who is separated from his wife.
I don’t want to be the voice of the men in MOM’s or somehow speak for the women. I don’t want to be tokenized as the voice of the men in MOM’s etc. But I am familiar with how my wife feels, and I know how many men I’ve come to know feel.
And I agree with Alan @133. I feel a responsibility to stick up for men in this situation. I can tell you hearing, “You had an ethical responsibility to break it off because you knew something she didn’t” or “most times this situation ends in divorce” isn’t helpful when you feel already like a failure and are blaming yourself for the problems in your relationship. Is it any wonder people in Mom’s are a bit sensitive?. And I’m not saying sugarcoat the reality. But when I realized Evergreen was full of crock, the church wasn’t going to provide me the answers I need, what resources did I have as a gay ignorant Mormon to know what to do in my situation?
I’m living the consequences of my ignorance. I wouldn’t advocate anyone jump into a MOM, but at the same time, having been in one, the relationship is completely real, the love is real, the pain of divorce is real. I don’t advocate just pushing people to get divorced either, and neither would I think the majority of psychotherapists etc. It’s more complicated than that.
You’ll get defensive and say that’s not what you’re advocating and it may not be. But that’s how a lot of people in the “Moho” community feel.
@ Holly 128 I think we agree. What we need is more education. We can’t stop this situation from happening. Whether we should or not, is another question, but I think we agree it’s not advisable. But no doubt, people need to know more about sexuality and under current church teachings it’s not happening or going to happen.
@Alex:
Kimball was not perfect. I do agree that what he said has hurt people. Only Christ was perfect. Yes, ideally he should have rephrased it in such a way that what he said wouldn’t have been misinterpreted 30 years down the road even if the vocabulary he used was drastically altered. That would have been ideal, but that would be a next to impossible feat. Reading his other works in context, I can see what he was trying to say, and being alive in today’s society, I can see where people get the opposite interpretation.
I had a similar experience. I fought against ever coming out. I too felt it was okay to be gay, but then a very strong rebuke against same-sex relationships. It is incredibly difficult to be gay in this world, and I don’t for a second look down on people who choose to be in a same-sex relationship, because asking them to learn to overcome their sexuality is tough. I am sure God will judge everyone according to their understanding and capabilities.
At the same time, I know that one of Satan’s greatest tools is to mix scripture with the philosophies of men. Quotes from general authorities can do the greatest harm when they are misinterpreted. That is why I worry so much when people misquote Elder Packer.
Why do tendencies only have to do with homosexuality? Yes, we have tendencies towards the impure and unnatural, but so do straight people. Everyone has them, but as Kimball and Packer has said, the difference is whether we overcome them, or we give in to them.
The man in the example had a heterosexual tendency towards pornography, and he did not learn to overcome it. It applies just as much to him as to us. Did the man need to change his sexual orientation? No, so why do you think we do? Why make a special case for homosexuals. Packer included us and treated us like heterosexuals. He made no distinction for us. Why do you want to make a distinction for us?
Did you read the link I provided? It had several quotes from other places talking about the need to overcome. It isn’t just gay people who need to overcome. We all need to overcome our sexual desires.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Boyd_K._Packer_October_2010_conference_talk
Elder Packer has said that same-sex attractions “may be a struggle from which you will not be free in this life.” Why would you think he is now saying that we can free ourselves from this struggle?
The widespread misinterpretation of Elder Packer will do more to increase gay suicide than anything Elder Packer could have said or done.
@Alex – Thank you for sharing your very personal thoughts and experiences.
I agree with your observations in #150. Some of the things you touch on are subjects that I want to cover in more depth later in this series, the title of which I chose carefully: I really do hope this can be an exercise in exploring the issues. As I’ve said many, many times on my blog, EACH MoMoM is different, the dynamics are different, the people are different, everything is different. Probably the only similarity they share in common is their complexity. Every couple has to work things out in a way that works for them.
As to dear President Packer, well, some people’s minds just simply are not going to be changed. Such people even refuse to believe that thousands of people could come to the same conclusion as to the import of his remarks. To such people, such conclusion is invalid. So be it. It doesn’t change the facts one iota, however. As has been commented, perception IS reality in this case.
What bothered me as much as or more than his actual comments, which were hastily edited after an early Monday morning meeting with President Monson (so word on the street has it), was the outpouring of “support” for him on FB pages, etc. I was sickened by the many, many anti-gay homophobic comments that were left on these sites. Regardless of what Packer meant or didn’t mean, that incident unveiled the ugly truth about many members of the Church. I found it extremely upsetting, and it is one of the factors that led to me saying “enough is enough.”
Alan — I’m glad to see that you’re feeling more welcome here, and that you’re contributing constructively to this discussion.
Since I specifically asked Holly to lay off you, and since she has been considerate enough to comply, I feel I should reply personally to this point where you’re commenting on some of Holly’s remarks:
Sure, perhaps no two orientations are identical. But claiming that spouses should feel no responsibility to be forthcoming to each other about their sexuality (including but not limited to orientation) doesn’t follow from that. And no one suggested that encouraging people to be more forthcoming sexuality-wise prior to marriage is the complete, simple answer to educating people about the pitfalls of MoMs.
I’m late to this thread, but I have gone through the post and the comments. I have only a couple of points to add.
I don’t want to spend time reconstructing what we think Elder (later President) Kimball’s understanding of homosexuality was, except to say that he was born in 1895 and was known to have views that were consistent with his era, his rural background and the most socially conservative positions of his time. It was between 25 and 40 years ago when President Kimball’s teachings on the subject of homosexuality were the official LDS positions on the subject. In recent decades those views have been repudiated by the Church in several important ways, and it’s not helpful to deny that this change has taken place.
I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that the LDS conception of homosexuality during the Kimball era was very, very different than today’s official stance (but, oddly, not different from what LDS hardliners continue to believe). From 1976 through the mid-eighties, you could be excommunicated for a mere admission of same-sex orientation. Sexual orientation was otherwise NOT acknowledged to be real. Instead, you had “tendencies” that could be diminished with “normal” sexual relations or at least managed. To this day, I still recoil at the word tendencies. It is a word that I find to be be misleading and oppressive. My innermost, most fundamental ability to love another person is not comparable in any way to alcoholism or kleptomania or adultery. If that’s your position, the conversation is over before it starts.
It was the policy of the Church when I was young to encourage gay people to enter mixed-orientation marriages. This policy had disastrous results, and the Church has backed away from it. I remember in 1988 when my father, distraught over my pending divorce, went to Church headquarters and met with a member of the Quorum of the Twelve whom he knew. The Apostle nearly barked my father out of the room as he shouted, “I can’t believe how much trouble this causes!” At the end of the interview my father left disillusioned and absolutely empty handed. The Brethren are aware of the misery caused by the institution of mixed-orientation marriage and they no longer prescribe it as a cure.
I like Carol Lynn Pearson’s perspective. She counsels against entering into mixed-orientation marriages, saying that in her experience and those of the many couples she knows, the risk is just too great. I agree with her, and I would never advise a young couple to go into a mixed-orientation marriage, eyes open or no. You think you understand the risks, but you don’t. I fully disclosed my orientation to my future wife when we had been dating only two months. That disclosure did nothing to prevent the train wreck that was our subsequent marriage. We thought we were going in with our eyes open. We had no idea of what lay ahead.
Even if we can agree that the formation of new mixed-orientation marriages is ill-advised, couples in mixed-orientation marriages deserve our support. I’ve written about this subject here. It’s like teenage marriage– we wouldn’t ever advise two 16 year olds to get married (or ask them to pray about it), but if we meet a couple who happened to marry young we would only wish them well, whether or not they were having troubles that were caused by their underage marriage.
As a reader, I appreciate it when thread comments are respectful and free of personal attack and any presumption of bad faith on the part of other commenters. All of the comments on this thread don’t meet this ideal, but I still want to thank Invictus for starting a useful discussion.
A final thought:
Contemplating a mixed-orientation marriage is like planning a day hike that goes wrong. You get out your sandals and day pack and make some sandwiches. What you encounter later on, however, are the Himalayas.
I find the fact that gender matters as much as it does in the formation of pair bonds to be one of the most intriguing (and inconvenient) mysteries of the human condition.
this is heartbreaking to me and only reminds me of the privilege i experience as a straight male. mixed-orientation marriage is such a delusional construct, so profoundly disrespectful of both parties and of the truth of human sexuality. it is as barbaric as the arranged marriages practiced in some parts of the world. my heart tears for the gay people who closeted in shame and fear, and i also feel for the humiliated straight women trapped in sexless marriages (while the men are def getting some somewhere, I have enuf gay friends to know that)
heartbreak.
This is a bit of a stereotype. Some gay men in MOMs do cheat (and cultural attitudes tend towards the idea that a sexually unsatisfied married man is justified in cheating), but that doesn’t mean all gay men in MOMs cheat sexually.
Chanson @153: — what would be the parameters of being “responsible” and “forthcoming” when it comes to the process of coming out of the closet? Shouldn’t it be an individual matter?
Think about a queer kid. Everyone knows he’s “gay” except for himself. If asked if he’s gay, he says, upset: “I’m not gay!”
Now, is it his fault he lacks the “responsibility” and “forthcoming” to “be who he is?” Or is it society’s fault for putting him into a position in which he feels he has to conceal (and, in many cases, have already revealed indirectly) some “truth” about himself?
Holly has no qualms taking a route that the queer kid lacks “integrity” if his upsetness makes another person upset, if there’s some “greater” evil afoot: patriarchy. The queer kid, if now a man thinking he should marry a woman, needs to pull himself up by the bootstraps, stop his sniveling, and think about someone other than himself, because as she says @20, if gay men “know about their sexuality at the time theyre courting straight women, and fail to tell those women, are engaging in patriarchy and misogyny.”
Her logic @ 107 is telling:
She plays a game called “Who is More Oppressed ” in order to determine what the most important battle is, and where the integrity should lie, who should be more “selfless” so that someone else can get to be “selfish” for a change.
But of course “Who is More Oppressed ” was a terrible game to begin with. It is liable to cause more injustice in the world, which I see her as causing. Are there more women in the world, or people of color? Since the answer is the latter, does that mean racism is more important than patriarchy?
Any woman of color will tell you sometimes racism is more important; sometimes patriarchy is. Taken together, they’re both important. The same is true for heterosexism and patriarchy. It is senseless to treat these concepts as monoliths and then deal out prescriptions to everyone, as if all women experience patriarchy the same way, which is indeed what Holly implies when she calls closeted gay men who don’t come out to their potential wives “misogynists.” That’s just not helpful at all.
Alan @158 — OK, that’s about what I thought you thought on the subject. Thanks for summing it up in one single, concise comment.
Now, I would like to invite Holly to make one single, concise rebuttal to this (if she so desires). Then — since it appears the sides will not be reconciled — I hope that we can wrap up the discussion and trust that readers can read the two positions and evaluate them for themselves.
Oh, and Invictus & Alex, my article is here. I warn you, it’s somewhat dense.
Alan @158:
Not automatically. I have no problem at all with “that queer kid” refusing to say one single thing about his sexuality to anyone he is not planning to sleep with, as evidence by my statement @42:
back to Alan @158:
I suppose that is a reasonable paraphrase of me, in a Sunstone article, quoted @2:
I stand by that position as reasonable and sound, particularly in light of statements like this from Invictus Pilgrim in a recent post on his blog:
Indeed, my position is so reasonable and sound that Alan himself writes @48
I suppose since we are dropping this matter after this comment I won’t get an answer, but I do wonder why Alan insists on arguing positions he does not actually hold, why he condemns me for holding a position he actually agrees with.
Me @107
Alan @158
If these women of color tell you this, are they playing ‘a game called “Who is More Oppressed ,'” or are they simply acknowledging something true about the world?
It might not be helpful to YOU, Alan. But it has been helpful to other gay men, to some gay women, and to some straight women.
I would point out that if it is “senseless to treat these concepts as monoliths and then deal out prescriptions to everyone,” then you should not write @24
that is a prescription, Alan, for what women should be able to expect from men who court them, borne of your treating heterosexism as a monolith.
I will go back to your discussion of racism and misogyny: I don’t think it’s OK to tell a white woman, “Look, it’s OK for to you hold off striving for more awareness, generosity, compassion and ‘integrity’ [provided it’s not in the sense of ‘knowing how to work the system’] in how you deal with people of color until you yourself suffer less under patriarchy.” But that’s essentially what you are saying to gay men about how they should treat women they marry. It’s neither helpful nor logical, as you well know since you wrote @48
I really don’t understand why you are continuing to argue a position you have already renounced. I suppose you don’t understand it either.
I would also call attention to Leslie’s recent post on lesbian-straight-guy MoMOMs. Among other things, she writes:
Here is evidence, Alan (and there is more in the full post), of how patriarchy benefits queer men in MOMs in ways it does not benefit queer women in MOMs, and hurts queer women in MOMs in ways it does not hurt queer men in MOMs. I do not think that by pointing out this imbalance, Leslie is “playing the game of who is more oppressed,” and I hope you would be decent enough not to assert that she is.
Finally, I want to address this:
Alan @116
Saying to women, “It’s OK for men like me to lie to people like you, even if it hurts you, as long as it protects us, and how DARE you suggest that patriarchy has a hand in how men choose to treat their wives” does not create a safe and welcoming space. Neither does arguing vociferously a position you do not actually hold, and demanding that people take seriously a position you have already renounced.
I must conclude that this is yet another example of Alan taking a position he does not really hold. He clearly thinks it’s fine to sacrifice safety and welcoming-ness at MSP if it serves his own agenda.
OK, I hope we can now agree that these two positions are now clear, and don’t require further clarification.