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.
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.