Aug.20.2009
9:14 pm
by Guest
Guest Post: How Can the LDS Church Maintain Its Core Values and Help Those Struggling with Same Gender Attraction
Guest Poster D. Michael Quinn first shared these remarks at a plenary session for the Sunstone Symposium held in Salt Lake City, Utah on August 13, 2009 where he focused on “Struggling with ‘Same-Gender Attraction’ in the LDS Church” for a panel entitled, “The Dynamics of Power and Authority in the LDS Church”.
Quinn defined himself as “homosexual” at age 12 but decided to live the heterosexual life expected by family, friends, society and the LDS Church. A Yale Ph.D., a former professor of American history for 12 years at BYU, and an excommunicated Mormon, he is author of a number of books and articles on Mormon Studies, including Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example (University of Illinois Press, 1996).
Mormonism teaches that any sacrifice is worthwhile for service to God and the LDS Church. Spencer W. Kimball’s 1969 Miracle of Forgiveness instructed each homosexually inclined male to just forget his desires and “force himself” to date the opposite sex and marry a woman in one of the sacred temples “for time and eternity.” In 1971, the Church officially published his pamphlet New Horizons for Homosexuals (later called A Letter to a Friend), which had a section titled “Multiply and Replenish” as a step in repenting from homosexual activities.
In effect, such “counsel” has turned generations of females into therapeutic sex-objects to “redeem” homosexually oriented males, whose “Priesthood service” to the LDS Church is more important than the happiness of their wives on earth. Women aren’t expendable in Mormonism, but their personal fulfillment is less important than male achievement.
Modern prophets and apostles are not unaware of or unfeeling about the unhappiness experienced by wives of gay men or by husbands of lesbians. Although LDS headquarters usually refuses accept those labels for people “struggling with same-gender attraction” (to adopt the authorized phrase), prophets and apostles have recognized this as a very real tragedy in the marriages and divorces of believing Latter-day Saints. More than twenty years ago, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced in the official LDS magazine: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or behavior.” (Ensign, May 1987)
Nonetheless, marriage and parenthood by homosexually inclined Mormons have remained the ultimate goals of every publication, every sermon, every counseling session, and every “reparative-therapy” technique offered by LDS leaders, by LDS Social Services, by Evergreen International, and by so-called “former homosexuals” like Erin Eldredge in such books as Born That Way? (published by Deseret Book in 1994 and unofficially endorsed by LDS headquarters ever since). She discussed the prospect of marriage in her chapter on “Repentance,” thus making a man into a therapeutic sex-object on her own road to redemption.
Correspondingly, those same LDS outlets counsel against divorce by the unhappily married spouses of men and women with “same-gender attraction.” Yet such unhappiness is the direct result of making heterosexual marriage the “achievable” goal for people like Erin and like me.
The blessings I received in fathering and raising four children to maturity were not worth the decades of unhappiness I brought into the life of their mother–even though I was sexually faithful to her. Husbands like me can father children we love, but the marital tensions in a gay-straight marriage also hurt our children. There are hundreds of members in an organization for Gay Mormon Fathers, and I think every one of them would agree with me on both counts.
However, the LDS Church has no monopoly on the kind of pressures, contradictions, and sadness experienced by homosexually oriented Mormons. Over the years, I’ve found remarkable similarity in the youthful experiences of same-gender-oriented Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, and members of other religious communities. If you think it’s easier for young gays and lesbians raised by atheists, just ask a few of them. Throughout the world, there are subcultures that currently accept sexual diversity in their children, but these are few by comparison.
About 90 percent of human males share the same basic feelings about sexual attraction, and about 98 percent of human females share the same basic feelings about sexual attraction. They cannot even comprehend the question: “When did you decide to be attracted to the opposite-sex?” This makes it extremely difficult for them (and you)–whether parents, friends, or religious leaders–to understand the other kinds of sexuality that occur just as naturally and often as early within a very small percentage of humanity. I hope it is not asking too much of this vast majority of humans–for them (and you) to acknowledge that it’s a living Hell to be different in such circumstances.
Most of us who are different in sexual orientation and desires have been willing to do anything to avoid confrontations with the heterosexual OTHER. We don’t need your repressiveness to force us to try to fit in. But our quandary is how to live a lie and still be happy, especially when our social acceptance causes pain to a spouse we love. And to the children we produce in a gay-straight marriage.
Eventually, many of us decide to live honestly as gays and lesbians, rather than to live dishonestly as the sexually repressed people you want us to be. For some, that means never getting married, but to remain celibate. For others, it means remaining single and sexually active with those we find desirable. For some, it means cheating on spouses with furtive encounters of the same-gender. For many, it means a lifelong marriage of love mingled with sexual frustration for both spouses. For others, it means divorce–whether we have been homosexually celibate or homosexually unfaithful to spouses.
And so what can an institution like the LDS Church do to aid those who are struggling with same-gender attractions, while the Church still maintains its core values?
First, acknowledge officially that this struggle is not a choice. It arises spontaneously in a small minority of humans from a combination of genes, hormones, and environmental influences that are fixed before the age of eight–when each homosexually oriented child is “innocent” by LDS revelation.
Second, LDS leaders should frequently urge those with this struggle to choose life on earth, not suicide.
Third, frequently urge parents not to reject or kick-out-of-the-house their children who are struggling with same-gender attractions.
Fourth, frequently urge parents not to reject their children who have decided to act upon those attractions. While maintaining a not-in-our-house rule, few parents of heterosexually active teenagers kick them out.
Fifth, LDS leaders should frequently encourage all parents to be long-suffering, emotionally available, verbally kind, and non-violent with their sexually active teenagers, so as not to force these vulnerable kids onto the streets as abandoned children or run-a-ways.
Are these things too much to ask of the compassionate men who are prophets, seers, and revelators of the LDS Church? I hope not, because none of the above recommendations violate any commandment or revelation of God.
Do LDS Policies Need to be Altered?
Next is the more difficult question of altering LDS policies–whether traditional or recent, formal or informal. At the most fundamental level, I recommend changes which are absolutely consistent with all the commandments and revelations of God.
First, change the General Handbook of Instructions to specify that there should be no punishments nor sanctions of any kind against Latter-day Saints who are struggling with same-gender attractions, without having engaged in sex acts. There should be no restrictions on Church service–including full-time missions–for simply being seriously tempted.
Second, the General Handbook should specify that the consequences of same-sex intimacy should be no more severe or long-lasting than the consequences for opposite-sex intimacy.
Third, the General Handbook should specify that, just as there are no penalties for male-female kissing by the unmarried, there should be no penalties for same-gender kissing in public or private.
Fourth, the General Handbook should specify that physically attacking persons suspected of being bisexual, homosexual, lesbian, or transgender is as serious a transgression as physically attacking anyone else, including battered spouses and abused children.
Fifth, at least once during each general conference, a speaker should restate the above changes during the first ten years after they are added to the General Handbook. Every one of them is completely consistent with the Gospel, and I hope I am mistaken in thinking they have not been added to General Handbook during the years since I last read it.
What about marriage?
Now, as to marriage. First, despite President Hinckley’s emphatic statement in 1987 and despite the dangers of unhappy spouses and of children living with divorce, most LDS leaders and members believe that it would violate God’s will if they do not encourage every homosexually inclined person to enter heterosexual marriage. Rather than a change in Church policy, I ask all Mormons two questions: “Would you advise your daughter or granddaughter to marry a homosexually oriented man? Would you advise your son or grandson to marry a homosexually oriented woman?” If you cannot answer “Yes” to both questions, then you should not counsel Mormons in general to do so. Make this your personal decision, and leave the rest to God and His revelations to each individual struggling with same-gender attractions.
Second is the question of civil unions or legal marriage for persons of the same gender or same sex. I ask all LDS leaders and members with pioneer Utah ancestry to remember that the plural marriages of their Mormon ancestors had no detrimental effects on “the institution of marriage” or “traditional marriage” in Boston or anywhere else during the nineteenth century. The same is equally true for the legalized same-sex marriages now being performed and lived in New England, in Iowa, in Canada, and in much of Northern Europe. Historically, and to the present, the unusual marriages of a very small minority have not damaged the traditional marriages of the vast majority.
Let civil proceedings occur in “the land of the free” without interference by religious groups. After the legalization of same-sex marriage, religious officials can still decline to perform those marriages, just as Southern Baptist ministers were not required to perform interracial marriages after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia. Ministers have the privilege to perform civil marriage, not the obligation to do so–even after being licensed with that authority. A licensed minister can decline to perform any marriage. As an attorney and former judge, Apostle Dallin H. Oaks knows this to be true.
Virtually every neighborhood already has residents who are cohabiting without marriage, and these fornicators don’t diminish the stability of your marriage, nor its importance. Letting queers like me legally marry another queer won’t damage your marriages, either. Please don’t continue to use the LDS Church’s money and organizational skills in political campaigns to deny civil rights and protections to homosexually oriented people. With regard to marital rights and privileges, we are now “the least of God’s children” in America.
Remember the words of Jesus: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me,” and “Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.” (Matthew 25: 40, 45)
Thank you.
Filed in Uncategorized, mormons |
Thank God for the intelligence, eloquence, and humanity of people like Mike Quinn!
Thank you Mike for a really fantastic paper, calling for humane alterations in church policy and practice regarding LBGT folks! I hope they start by getting rid of Kimball’s “Miracle of Forgiveness” (in particular a certain horrific chapter titled The Crime Against Nature - itself such a crime).
I only have one concern regarding his paper, and that is his “adoption” of misleading and inappropriate LDS rhetoric: “same-gender attraction.” (SSA or same-sex attraction was bad enough, but same-gender attraction is beyond the pale.) Whichever LDS pundit came up with this twisted phrase has apparently had NO education whatsoever in current sociological theory, especially in regards to human sexuality and gender issues.
For the record, gender is to sex (i.e. male, female, intersex, etc.) as ethnicity is to race. Sex and race are typically rather fixed and not very mutable. Gender and ethnicity are never fixed and are widely mutable. Having brown skin belongs to your race. Speaking Spanish and celebrating Cinco de Maio are parts of your ethnicity. Having male genitalia denotes my sex. Wearing combat boots and smoking a cigar are markers of my gender. Sex is female. Gender is feminine. So same-gender attraction is when a masculine woman is only attracted to masculine men. Or when a feminine man is only attracted to feminine women. And these have NOTHING to do with homosexuality. Same-gender attraction has very little place in any discussion on homosexuality.
I suppose Mike adopted current LDS phraseology in a well-intentioned attempt to meet Mormons on common ground - to “speak their language”. Unfortunately this only ends up confusing the issues even further by validating incorrect and misleading words and ideas. Most Mormons desperately need to be educated around issues of sexuality, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, etc. so that we can all have thoughtful, meaningful dialogue about this, with everyone on the same page at the same time. (Remember “teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves”?) Part of that means calling Mormon leaders on their ignorance and not letting them get away with poorly created neologisms that just don’t work.
Connell, thanks for claifying the difference between sex and gender. However, it still seems almost a moot point since I believe most people would never have questioned the difference as you describe it. In my mind gender has always meant male or female. Same gender attraction then would mean attracted to the same gender as one’s self. Or, same-sex attraction, attracted to someone of the same sex (male or female). Isn’t that what being gay is all about? I don’t understand your disagreement with the terminology. Can you explain? I don’t want to offend anyone in the way I discuss this topic. So far, no gay person has corrected me and I’ve used both terms many times in my discussions on the topic.
Thanks,
sheri
Hi, Sheri. Connell is absolutely correct. I think of it this way; sex is what is between one’s legs and gender is what is between one’s ears. This is why some people believe that they were born into the wrong body and even obtain reassignment surgery so that their mind and body will be in alignment (transgender).
True point, Connell is correct. Gender, by now, as referring to male or female is outdated.
However, it is my impression that, in addition to just being old-fashioned about things like this, the Church prefers “same-gender attraction” as opposed to “same-sex attraction” because the term “gender” appears/sounds/seems softer than the term “sex.” People in the church are often, in my experience, less about political correctness, and more about comfort, and for issues of sexuality and the Mormon Church, this is absolutely true!
Additionally, acknowledging all the variants of gender and sexuality (bisexual, gay, lesbian, transexual, transgender, intersex, etc) would seem to call into question the church’s teaching that “Gender is an essential characteristic of pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity” as stated in the proclamation to the family. In the first place, wordings like that would also need to be altered, but further, wouldn’t there need to be clarification of this doctrine?
can. of. worms.
My guess is, Church officials might just be relying on the fact that most people don’t know about and don’t think about these distinctions, and avoiding a boat-load of conflict.
By the way, I’m a fan of this post, Mr. Quinn. Thank you.
Interestingly, in the September 2009 issue of the Ensign, pp. 62-65, there’s an article about a family with a member who is dealing with Same-Sex Attraction (as opposed to Same-Gender Attraction).
It begins, “When it comes to understanding same-sex attraction, I have countless unanswered questions. But I am trying to see my sister’s heart as the Savior does.”
Thanks for sharing that story from the ensign.
It was a story in the Ensign years ago that helped in my acceptance of my son being gay. That story was about the devastation to a family when the husband could no longer deny being gay. He had followed the counsel given by those in authority to marry, his covenants, and he would no longer be attracted to the same sex. He left a wife and young children because that did not happen. Reading that story made me glad that my son was accepting who he was and would not try to be different.
I sure hope that church leaders have moved away from giving that kind of counsel.
Sheryl
I just read the story from the Ensign, and as much as I wanted to read words of unconditional love inspired by the God of Love, or the Savior himself, two sentences ruined it all for me. I admit, I’m extra sensitive to this issue after the hundreds of debates I’ve had over the past year on the subject of homosexuality and gay marriage. But when I read the sentence … “I know that as deeply as He knows me, He knows her, and that as He has prepared a way for my return to Him through repentance, so has He prepared a way for hers…” I realize he is still looking for her to change - to not be gay anymore as if it is her choice. And…”While I may never know in mortality how to love Leigh in a way that has power to change her involvement in same-sex relationships, I can learn to love her without condoning her lifestyle, and I can reach out to her in a way that she needs. After all, it is the Savior’s role, not mine, to heal her…” which implies again that she needs healing because she’s gay.
I believe the only healing needed for our gay brothers and sisters is from the assault being launched at them by people who truly don’t see them as God sees them. We can’t continue to expect them to one day wake up after years of prayers and fasting and be heterosexual. This rhetoric has to stop in order for healing to occur. There’s nothing wrong with them.
Sherrie, those same 2 sentences bothered me also. Like I said, I’m glad my son accepts who he is and isn’t trying to change. He might need to repent, just like the rest of us who are not perfect, but that has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.
When my son was first struggling with the fact that he might be gay, we had a long talk and I told him that I was sure that come judgment day he would not be judged for being gay but for the person that he is. As far as I’m concerned there are a lot worse things than having a gay/lesbian child, brother, sister, etc.
I totally agree with your last comments, Sherrie. You said in one post that you wished you had Carol Lynn Pearson’s way with words. Well, I wish I was able to express my thoughts as clearly as you do yours.
Sheryl
Sheryl,
I am SO happy your son has YOU! What a lucky and blessed man he is and how lucky you are to have him. And thank you so much for your kind words. Heart by heart we can change the world;-)
Have a wonderful weekend Sheryl.
Sheri
Just checked in and found your kind words. I am blessed to have him. He brings a lot of joy into my life.
I truly do not understand people who turn away from family because of their sexual orientation.
Sheryl,
Thank you for sharing your experience. Your son is lucky to have a mother that he is close enough to and open enough to accept what he has to say and discuss it with a clear head. I can only hope that when I have this discussion with my parents, they will respond in a similar manner.
Thank you for sharing the light of Christ.
Jared, I too hope that your parents will be understanding. I was certainly disappointed when my son told me, not because he was gay but because he waited so long to tell me and, I’ve done my share of mourning the lack of grandchildren (he’s an only and my stepdaughter has other issues).
Know that you can always refer your parents to this site and I’m certainly always open to talking with other parents.
Just wondering how old you are and how long you have known that you are gay?
Hallelujah.
Throughout the post, Michael assumes that mixed-orientation marriages (where one partner has SSA) are necessarily painful. I realize that there are many marriages where there is no true love, and the participants may have got married to fulfill the gospel command to multiply and replenish the earth. The church has stepped away from this and I applaud the church for doing so.
However, to assume that all mixed-orientation marriages are like that is faulty reasoning. Just because it was like that for Michael, does not mean it is like that for everyone. My wife and I are very happy in our mixed-orientation marriage. He should be careful while advocating the causes of LGBT people, not to discount the very really stories of LGBT people like myself who have absolutely wonderful marriages to someone of the opposite sex.
Joshua -
First of all, I want to commend you on your honesty.
As long as both parties in a mixed-orientation marriage are in agreement about the expectations of that union, then it can work to some degree. But it is all relative. Both would need to be in agreement that their present relationship may be the best it will ever be and that there is a possibility that it may get worse and their relationship will need to be continually re-evaluated. Both would need to be completely honest in their feelings for each other and for others outside the relationship.
I have known some couples that have tried this, with varying degrees of success. In all of these instances they didn’t discover until after they were married that the gay feelings just don’t go away and had they truly understood before, they wouldn’t have entered into this union to begin with.
I don’t know what your situation is, but it is my experience that the non-gay partner has the false hope that the gay partner will eventually convert. Usually the issue of complete honesty gets in the way. It is somewhat akin to the “battered wife syndrome”, wherein it is easier to deal with the known than to take a chance with the unknown. While there is some degree of happiness, it is far from ideal.
But if feel both of you are genuinely happy then go for it with the understanding that in the long run there may be some bitterness with one or both of you.
I commend you for wanting to make the best of the situation, but I think you’d probably agree with Michael Quinn that you would never want your son or daughter in such a relationship.
Peer pressure coupled with the stigma attached to being a homosexual can be a strong motivating factor in keeping these kinds of mix-marriages working … albeit on the “surface”. Keeping up appearances is the hallmark for keeping a roof over your head and food on the table. Divorce is not a solution especially with how the economy is right now. Staying married in a mix-marriage is primarily an economic one.
I believe there is some denial occurring but I acknowledge some people are able to live the rest of their lives in a crippled romantic relationship and they’re happy with that.
I know personally two people who have acknowledged their angst with living in a mixed marriage. One just came out to me at our place of work. In both cases, the gay half of the couple is feeling guilty and feels his lot in life is to live the scam to keep up appearances or for the sake of the children.
The propensity for these men to act on their frustrated sexual desires is dangerous too. I can produce some very heart-felt e-mails/chat-sessions with men who admitted they have done the Larry Craig thing a few times.
So often we forget the wife…and the children. They deserve better.
I just cannot express strongly enough the false notion a gay man can marry to cure his homosexuality.
Part of the solution would be mitigating the paralyzing stigma foisted on homosexuals by false propaganda. Homosexuals do not all get AIDS…spontaneously either. Homosexuals can lead a productive and fruitful long-term life as singles or couples with or without the blessings of the LDS Church. We are part of the community and religious dogma should not interfere with our day-to-day functioning.
There might be a way to find a pew in the back of the chapel for celibate gays to co-exist in an LDS Ward but how sad it is for said celibate homosexual to never feel companionship or romantic love.
We must get rid of the idea that homosexuality is an affliction. It’s just as much a part of a person’s psyche as when a person says they are heterosexual. You don’t have urges to control. Your only urge is to love and be love; which is the most basic reason to exist.
Hi, everyone. I feel compelled to respond to something Cowboy II said:
“The propensity for these men to act on their frustrated sexual desires is dangerous too. I can produce some very heart-felt e-mails/chat-sessions with men who admitted they have done the Larry Craig thing a few times.”
According to the CDC’s statistics, the largest growing group of HIV/AIDS patients is heterosexual women of color. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/pdf/women.pdf
Sadly, a lot of these women are getting the disease from their partners in (supposedly) heterosexual relationships. The men are having same-sex intercourse and not always practicing safely, and so they bring home this disease to their wives or partners. While HIV/AIDS is not the death sentence it used to be (medications and medical care have improved drastically), it is still truly unfortunate that things like this happen. If people did not feel such pressure (whether from society at large or religious organizations or … whatever) to be “straight,” then these unfortunate situations would not occur.
I lost a friendship when I mentioned to a close acquaintance his wife is savvy to his naughty deeds when he goes out of town on business trips. He naively thinks his wife doesn’t know.
I’m not defending deception. I would insist every mixed-marriage be clear and upfront with every detail before getting to the alter. But, I know in reality that doesn’t happen all the time. Some people can live in a state of denial until it is too late to back out…can we call that deception? Maybe not when the intent is blurry.
I can’t imagine a woman not knowing or suspecting their hubby might be a homosexual. They know.
I know there are homosexuals in mixed-marriages who try hard to keep the deep dark secret from their mates and they can convince themselves they can live in a safe cohabitation and they will never partake in any unsafe activities. But it is extremely hard and probably the hardest test of trust in a mixed-marriage. There is always a cloud over the partner when he is without a constant reminder or monitoring of every minute of his free time.
The twirling of the wedding band on the finger is sometimes not enough of a reminder.
I am sorry Michael sees his ex-wife as a therapeutic sex-object. I am sure many spouses have felt that way. I think too many members with same-sex attractions have married someone they were not sexually attracted to in hopes that it will cure them.
However, Michael does not stop there. He says Erin simply discussing the possibility of marriage is turning a man into a therapeutic sex object. Many gay saints have developed a sexual attraction for someone of the opposite sex and have gone on to create fulfilling and faithful marriages. I am one of them. I am truly sorry that his marriage didn’t work out. There are lots of straight people whose marriages didn’t work out either. But I do not think that gives him the right to attack the marriages of other gay people. MY WIFE IS NOT A THERAPEUTIC SEX OBJECT. She is a beloved daughter of God who is adored by her husband. Michael says the unhappiness in his marriage “is the direct result of making heterosexual marriage the “achievable” goal for people like Erin and like me.” I am sorry he felt it was not achievable for him. It may not have been. There are many saints, both gay and straight, for whom marriage might not be a viable option. However, he asking for the church to deny the validity of my marriage. I find it ironic that in the name of defending gay saints he is attacking something that is so precious to so many of us - our marriage.
MormonsForMarriage cannot reach out to the married gay Mormon population if they allow posts that refer to their spouses as therapeutic sex-objects. It is very offensive.
One thing you need to remember, Joshua, is that before you were born the Church advised homosexual members to marry opposite-sex people as a “cure” for their homosexuality. It was a very different time.
As I’m sure you know, it wasn’t that long ago that anyone admitting to same-sex attraction was a candidate for excommunication. Fast-forward to 2008 and a young gay person coming out in a ward in liberal California is welcome with open arms and great appreciation.
The church has changed a lot in the past 30 years.
I agree there has been a lot of change in the church, and there is a lot of change that is needed. However, we need to cautious not to over correct. I agree with Quinn that there were too many unsuspecting spouses that were turned into therapeutic sex objects. It sounds like Quinn’s wife was on of them. That is sad, and it probably still is going on today. I don’t argue with that. This is a horrible awful thing that needs to be stopped. I am glad the church is trying to step away from that and I am glad there are people making that statement.
But Quinn goes too far when he says that simply discussing marriage will turn a potential spouse into a therapeutic sex object. It is very hard to be in a mixed-orientation marriage. There is a lot of prejudice and stereotypes that we have to fight. I think that is why many people in mixed-orientation marriages are pushed into the closet. The closet is not a fun place to be. I wish we lived in a culture where we can be loved and accepted, but we don’t. I get upset when I see articles that contribute to the hateful environment that I have to face. Quinn may have had a bad experience with his marriage, but when he blames the church for saying happiness in a marriage is achievable, he goes too far. It seems because he failed, he assumes and hopes everyone else would fail. Look, if you don’t want a mixed-orientation marriage, don’t get one. I find it highly ironic that a group that is “supposed” to support marriage for gay people are so quick to judge when they don’t agree with the person the gay person decides to marry. Let us make our own decision on who we want to marry.
It is wrong to make baseless promises that will install false hope for those who really want marriage, but it is more wrong to tell someone they can’t do something when they can. It invalidates my marriage. He says “Yet such unhappiness is the direct result of making heterosexual marriage the “achievable” goal for people like Erin and like me.” It is achievable for people like Erin. I don’t know about people like him. I am SO thankful for the church for declaring it is achievable. I would rather have the church go back to the 1970’s view of homosexuality, then to stop saying that mixed-orientation marriages are achievable.
I completely agree that marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to “cure” homosexuality. But I disagree when he says that saying mixed-orientation marriages are achievable turns the straight spouse into a therapeutic sex object.
The position I would like to see this site work for is that it works for some, but others it does not work for. I believe some gay people will never find happiness in a mixed-orientation marriage. But I KNOW that some gay people can find happiness in a mixed-orientation marriage because I have. My wife has been my greatest blessing. I would do anything for her. I have developed a sexual attraction to her. I love her more than my own life. I am aware that others have not had that same experience. I feel sorry for that, but I don’t think that gives them the right to attack my marriage.
Many gay Mormons are married. You cannot support gay Mormons while attacking mixed-orientation marriages.
Joshua, I respect and honor you for telling your story here.
It seems to me, from my perspective, that it would be far healthier for people who describe themselves as “having same-sex attraction but having developed a sexual attraction to a person of the opposite sex” to admit to their bisexuality. Maybe you don’t see yourself that way, and I respect that. Again, to someone on the outside, that is how it looks.
I think that your story is unusual. I have far too many gay and lesbian friends who were miserably closeted and in opposite-sex marriages because that’s what they were expected to do. Sure, a “happy marriage” may be achievable, but it is a rarity and should not be expected as the norm.
I realize that I speak from a somewhat privileged perspective — I’m straight. I don’t have to “struggle” against being who I am and who the church tells me I should be (my parents are LDS, converted after I was an adult, and there is no way I would choose to follow them in this matter — but those are my own matters). I cannot imagine what it must have been like for you to do that.
I realize that my comments seem a little convoluted, but I keep trying to make sense of what you’re saying and it really does look like you are advocating that gay men and lesbians should marry someone of the opposite sex simply because it is *possible* to be happy — despite the far greater likelihood, from mere statistical probability, that the opposite is the case.
I am not attacking anyone’s choice about who to marry, BTW. I am attacking an institution and an organization that tell people that they cannot be happy if they are gay — and that if they are gay, they cannot be married to the person they really love and are most attracted to, as opposed to someone for whom they managed to develop a sexual attraction for.
If you can help me understand your position, I would be greatly appreciative.
I do consider myself to be someone “having same-sex attraction but having developed a sexual attraction to a person of the opposite sex”. That is my point. I was gay but have since developed a sexual attraction for a woman. I don’t think all gay people can do that, but I know some have. The American Psychological Association has stated “Some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.”
I do not think anyone should get married to someone they are not sexually attracted to. You should develop that sexual attraction first. I think most of the gay men and lesbians who were unhappy in an opposite-sex marriage either did not first develop the sexual attraction to their spouse or they lied to their spouse. No marriage goes well when it is based on a lie.
I also agree that marriage should not be expected of gay people. I am glad that the church is moving away from that. However, there is a difference between expecting something from everyone and simply acknowledging it happens for some people. I think it is more common than you might imagine. I know many people in mixed-orientation marriages that do just fine. I think the difference is that you hear about it when a spouse cheats, leaves for a same-sex partner, or some other issue. You don’t hear about it when they have a great relationship.
I am defending an institution and an organization that tell people that they can be happy if they are gay — and that if they are gay, they can be married to the person they really love and are most attracted to. I am defending the organization against one that says gay people can’t get to the point that they are sexually attracted to an opposite-sex spouse, or that they can’t even be married to someone they really love.
Here are some other stories about successful mixed orientation marriages:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon336.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,660207378,00.html
Thank you, Joshua. Your articles actually backed up my point. It may work for a few people, but statistically it is just not likely. I am glad that your marriage is working for you at this time. I must admit that I would not want to be the woman married to a man who “managed to develop a sexual attraction” to me. I would far rather be a single woman with an honest gay friend. However, I am not in your shoes or hers. If it works for you, so be it.
I just know that saying to a gay or lesbian person that a happy marriage to someone of the opposite sex is “possible, so you should try it” has a far greater likelihood of making people miserable than happy — and that both empirical and anecdotal evidence backs that up.
Best to you and your family.
I don’t think I ever advocated we should tell anyone “you should try it”. I think that is wrong and harmful. I don’t even think we should tell straight people “you should try it”. I support anyone’s decision to marry anyone they can legally marry. I have encouraged and supported same-sex couples who wanted to marry back east where it is still legal to marry. If they are eligible for marriage, they should be old enough to make their own decisions and not have anyone say who they should or should not marry. It is this article that is trying to say who we should not marry. In Mormonism, we consider our agency one of the greatest gifts, and one we fought a war for in heaven. That agency includes the ability to chose who we want to marry. This article attacks our agency and calls for the church to join in the attack on our agency.
Happiness in a mixed-orientation marriage is possible. I have achieved it. Many of my friends have achieved it. Saying it is not possible is a bold-faced lie. I don’t care how you justify it. It is an attack on me and my family. I think being exposed to different people with different experiences is good. They should hear the truth. They should hear the positive and the negative. They should hear people who have tried to make it work and failed as well as those who succeeded. To say happiness is impossible is lying to them.
Lying to people just because you are worried that they might make a decision that you disagree with is shameful. DON’T PUSH YOUR MORALS ON US! Look, if you don’t want a mixed-orientation marriage, DON’T GET ONE. Why do you have to attack gay people and the people we love? If you think it is morally wrong for us to get married, then that is your own opinion, but don’t lie about it. And please don’t call for the church to abandon us and start spreading lies that happiness in not possible.
And don’t call our spouses therapeutic sex objects. Seriously, that is offensive. You cannot support gay people while attacking mixed-orientation marriages.
You know, Joshua, I’m looking for anywhere in my posts that I “pushed my morals” on you. I’m looking for anyplace I called for your church to abandon you, and I’m also looking for anywhere I called your spouse or anyone else’s a “therapeutic sex object.” I also never said “happiness in a mixed-orientation marriage was impossible”; I said it was not likely — and science backs me up. You and your wife are happy, and that is all that counts; honestly, your decision is none of anyone’s business and if the two of you are satisfied, well hooray! That does not negate the fact that thousands of other people are NOT happy in the same situation, okay?
I am grateful to note that you support same-sex marriage.
I do wonder, though, why you feel the need to get so defensive about the entire matter.
Again, my best to you and your family.
I am frustrated at this post, not you fiona64. It is this post that calls my wife a “therapeutic sex object”. It is this post that calls on the church to stop saying heterosexual marriages are the achievable for people like Erin. I am a testament that it is an achievable for people like Erin.
I know lots of people who have made successful mixed-orientation marriages. I highly recommend it to anyone who is honest with their potential spouse and can develop a sexual attraction for them. I doubt your “statistics”. Like I said, most of them either lied to their spouse or didn’t develop a sexual attraction before marriage. Your statement “if they are gay, they cannot be married to the person they really love and are most attracted to” makes it sound like you are saying you don’t think we really are married to the person we really love and are most attracted to.
But even if your “statistics” are correct, why should that matter? Shouldn’t we have MORE support if our marriages are so tough? I mean, if you think we are most likely to be miserable in our marriages, shouldn’t a loving, kind person do all they can to make us less miserable? Saying we are doomed to failure only frustrates us, and makes us more hopeless and prone to suicide.
Society only allows you to be “openly gay” if you embrace same-sex relationships. Everyone else is pushed into the closet. The closet is a horrible place to be. I was in there and will never go back in. Lots of people in mixed-orientation marriages are in the closet, and don’t want to come out because they are afraid if they do they will lose their families.
I want to change the Mormon Church so that gay people can come out and still feel loved and accepted. I want married gay people to feel that they don’t have to chose between their family they love and being true to themselves. I want to create an environment where mixed-orientation marriages are okay and are accepted, just like any other family. There is no reason to think they are any bit less just because there is a gay family member.
I am defensive about this because beyond being an attack on my family and other gay families, I think it pushes married gay people into the closet. It creates a feeling of hopelessness, which only serves to weaken mixed-orientation marriages. Many people would rather die than loose their family, and unfortunately way too many of them take their own life. I was at the point where I wanted to commit suicide once. It is a horrible awful place and I don’t want anyone to be there, and I will do anything I can to spread the message of hope to all those gay people out there who think they have to chose between being happy or following what they know to be right.
Joshua, I really want you to help me understand this statement of yours: “I will do anything I can to spread the message of hope to all those gay people out there who think they have to chose between being happy or following what they know to be right.”
Let me explain why. It seems to me that you are saying that “what they know to be right” = marrying someone of the opposite sex, as long as they can “manage to develop a sexual attraction before marriage.” Is that really what you are saying? I am not trying to be antagonistic; I’m trying to *get it.*
I am glad that you and your wife are happy, as with your friends. I have no reason to doubt your anecdotal evidence that you’re happy. Nor do I have any reason to doubt the significant anecdotal and empirical evidence that says that the majority of gay men and lesbians who are/were married to someone of the opposite sex did so because that was what they were a) expected to do and were miserable or b) were told it would “cure them” or “deliver them” from being gay or lesbian and they were miserable because it did no such thing.
I just know that for *me,* I would rather not be the person that someone forced themselves to be attracted to. I would rather have the gay buddy. Your wife obviously does not feel the same way, and that’s her right.
I just want to try to understand why you made the statement I quoted above.
Thanks for the continuing dialogue, and for clarifying your frustration.
And thank you for continuing the conversation. I am super frustrated at the post, and I think I let some of that frustration turn against you. For that I am sorry.
“what they know to be right” is meant to be ambiguous. I think it varies greatly from one gay person to another. I talked about agency earlier. One of the Mormon Articles of Faith states the need to allow all people to worship according to the dictates of their own conscious. Quinn attacks this fundamental Mormon principle by trying to impose his morals on others, and calls for the church to do the same. I think everyone should be able to try to be with whoever they think they need to be with in order to be happy. It isn’t for us to decide.
It seems there are many gay people who “what they know to be right” is avoidance of same-sex relationships. Why else would ex-gay groups be gaining so many people despite horrific opposition? Whether that is celibacy, or getting married, or trying to maintain a marriage they are already in, many share the same goal.
If that is “what they know to be right”, then they need to know that they don’t have to sacrifice happiness in order to act according to the dictates of their own conscious. This web sites seeks to spread the message that they can’t (especially this page http://mormonsformarriage.com/?page_id=10) That is harmful and destructive. This message of despair has lead many faithful latter-day saints to suicide. Forcing them to accept same-sex relationships against what they know to be right will only create heartache.
I agree with what you have to say that probably a majority of gay people got married for the wrong reasons. That isn’t agency. Getting married based off of a lie or pressure is not exercising your agency. It is caving in to external pressures. I do not advocate that. The reasons you listed were not the reasons I got marriage. Any marriage based on lies and expectations is bound for failure. That is why President Monson teaches us to marry the one we love and love the one we marry.
However to go the other extreme and say they should not teach that happiness in a mixed-orientation marriage is possible would create a folly that is worse than the first. I believe in supporting a person’s agency, and that is done by presenting the facts but allowing a person to make their own decision and then supporting that decision. This web site does not do that. Joseph Smith said:
“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No, I will lift them up and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”
This web site would be much improved if they sought to lift gay people up “and in their own way too” rather than trying to bear them down. Even if the web site disagrees with us, does not give it an excuse to bear gay people down.
For me, what was right was marriage to my wonderful wife. For another, it might be celibacy. For another, it might be a same-sex relationship. That is why we cannot judge.
Joshua, you’ve put a lot of thought and energy into your comments. We’d love to have your write a guest post for the site where your ideas won’t be buried and lost on a thread of something with which you strongly disagree. If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to submit a guest post, send an email to mormonsformarriage (at) gmail dot com.
Thank you again, Joshua. I really do appreciate the dialogue. I try to understand a variety of points of view.
You wrote: It seems there are many gay people who “what they know to be right” is avoidance of same-sex relationships. Why else would ex-gay groups be gaining so many people despite horrific opposition? Whether that is celibacy, or getting married, or trying to maintain a marriage they are already in, many share the same goal.
Can I address that for a moment? I think that the reason so many people go to these “ex-gay therapies” (which have been debunked and refuted by all reputable psychiatric and psychological associations due to their significant cause of harm) is that there is so much social stigma attached to being gay. People read daily (if they look at newspaper comment forums, for example) that they are “filthy, disgusting perverts.” They are reduced to a sex act (always the same one, always male-to-male) and nothing more. They are told that they are pedophiles (despite the fact that most pedophiles identify as hetero). They are beaten, raped, murdered … you name it — all because of their sexual orientation.
If that is your experience, wouldn’t you want to be different? Wouldn’t you want to fix it if you could? Wouldn’t you feel desperate? Wouldn’t you try anything to be straight?
Well, that seems to meet up with the experience of everyone I’ve known who went through Exodus or Evergreen. They were still gay, but now they were even more ashamed and hid their orientation. Everyone that I have talked through who went through one of these “therapies,” whether it was voluntary or their parents shipped them off, talked about how much worse it made them feel.
I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy, to tell you the truth. Kids (I use this in the sense of teens and even young adults; I’m 46) who go through those programs are at an enormous risk for suicide.
I am not talking out my hat here. One of my high school boyfriends dated me because he was trying very, very hard *not* to be gay. I was once engaged to a wonderful man who called off our engagement abruptly a few months before the wedding; he gave a rather flimsy reason. Last year, I learned that he was transgendered, a post-op M2F. (I still have pronoun issues, to tell the truth, and use “he” when referring to our engagement and “she” in reference to the present day.) The saddest thing in the world to me about the whole danged thing is that she didn’t feel like she could tell me, who loved her, the real reason — because she didn’t feel safe to let me know. She was suicidal many times, tried marriage as a man with a woman other than myself, and that just made it worse.
I am glad that you are happy. There is little enough of that in this world to go around, you know? Your experience is rare, and I am glad that you are thankful.
What I hear is a lot of what Joshua feels and says “ex-gay groups [are] gaining so many people”. Where are they? What also is missing from Joshua is any mention of what his wife says about the relationship. For all we know, Joshua is a fine upstanding male figure in his relationship but does his wife know his inclinations?
I don’t see nor hear much from the wives of currently married gay men…especially in Mormon circles. I witness and deal with many of my friends who are in a variety of relationships. Many of them I would not consider healthy or happy. Some are still married and living a dual-life. Some are married with the wife fully aware of the husband’s inclinations but I have seen where it has resulted in a very strained and unhealthy co-habitation…primarily from fear. They fear change and the resulting unknown consequences of breaking up a marriage. Fear is the basic motivating factor at keeping them together…and that’s not healthy.
We possibly need to qualify the word “love” used in this discussion. Love is a dubious component in a relationship. It’s hard to describe and define exactly the many different types of love. For example: I love my family. I love my siblings. But when I have experienced a true loving relationship I know what that means. There is no pretending. No play-acting. The experience of true love is rare even in heterosexual couples. So, when we say we “love” someone we need to quantify it as “love” on all levels and components that a loving relationship entails…the kind that poems are written about, sonnets are sung and only a few married couples really experience…gay or straight.
I can’t see how a mixed-oriented couple can find that level of love.
CowboyII - I’m quite sure Joshua’s wife was aware of his issues before they were married.
And I think we need to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. If they say they’re happily married, we need to believe them - whoever “they” are: straight, gay, lesbian or mixed-orientation, religious or secular.
It would be pretty hypocritical of us to say we want to have marriage equality but we don’t believe “people of your kind” can really find marital bliss, wouldn’t it? It’s still not uncommon for straight folks to say that gays/lesbians couldn’t possibly understand what love is.
An old friend of mine used to say, “There’s a lid for every pot,” and I think that so long as couples are living up to their vows to one another we as a community need to respect their right to make those vows and provide them the support they need to succeed.
Thank you Laura.
Cowboy II, I assure you we do not have the type of love that sonnets are sung about, but one that extends that love. We have a love where we come home everyday and comment on how happy we are. One where we have a hard time letting go of each other in the morning when I go to work. One where just seeing her makes me smile. We know our love is rare and few people have been able to achieve. You can ask anyone in our ward. A couple weeks ago I had a sister bear her testimony about how much she knew I loved my wife, and that helped her get baptized because she hoped that some day her marriage could be as great as mine. Believe me, I love my wife. I think because we have talked about my same-sex attractions our relationship has grown deeper. She has gone with me as I delved into the depths of my emotions. She has been with me as I struggled to overcome pornography. She knows me inside and out, and that has made our love stronger than most couples could even imagine.
Laura,
I love the “a lid for every pot” analogy. I’m certainly hoping to find my “lid” some day. Maybe my expectations are too high and that’s why I’m still single…I call it: forced celibacy.
Joshua,
I want to assure you that I’m not looking to make you change your situation. I truly am happy for you. I have two buddies who are in a situation much like yours and I am in no way working for dissolving their relationships. And, believe it not, I do not pity them. In fact, there might even be a tiny fraction of envy on my part.
But then, to let you know where I am coming from: I don’t want to be “fixed” or set straight in this life or the next life. I truly am happy that I am gay in this life and I will be in the next. I’m accepting of what has made me who I am. I believe I have a purpose and a calling for being just who I am.
But, I have a belief in a more stark contrast on human sexuality. I am not a believer in grades of homosexuality. You are either gay or you are straight. (That’s a whole different topic/thread that I don’t want to get sidetracked here.) I know I’m not popular with some of my gay acquaintances for my beliefs. I haven’t any scientific research and I’m hardly a professional love counselor. The only facts I can draw upon are from my somewhat limited experiences in my life.
Pardon me for a moment while I pick your post apart. I mean it with sincere friendliness…(that’s why I used your first name)
You seem to mention a few times: “I” in your description of how you love your wife. You have mentioned “We” a few times but I’m not getting a clear indication on just how “she” feels.
Would you mind if she would type a response here?
One more thing, Laura:
The experience Joshua has had might be used by the Mormons to validate their attitude towards all gays. I am sure you recognize the danger in how one example can be used to generalize and stereotype a group of people. Joshua can find his happiness the way he did but it won’t work for all. The Mormon Church should recognize there has to be a place for all children in the plan of salvation.
I could not sit in a pew in a Church and pretend I love someone just so I feel I have a place in Heaven. I’m not able to love a woman like she needs to be loved. And I’m not going to feel I’m a second-class member if I can’t.
fiona64,
I must respectfully say you are dead wrong. When you attack people who attend Evergreen, you not only attack me but many of my closest friends. I would imagine going to MCC you really only see people who had a bad experience with ex-gay groups. Do not assume you have a good understanding of what we go through or why we do it. Evergreen is a wonderful organization that for me was heaven sent. Every person’s journey is unique.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to be gay in this world? I’m sick of straight people thinking they know what is best for me. It doesn’t matter whether they say I should just get married and it will go away (which is a lie) or they accuse me of the only reason I want to avoid same-sex relationships is because I don’t have the balls to make my own decisions and am some kind of sheep who caves to social stigma. Either way, they are passing judgment on me.
Look here. I live in the bay area. I am going against the tide of social stigma and laughing at it in the face. Social stigma says mixed-orientation marriage are bad. Social stigma says the only way to be openly gay is to do it their way. The “only” way to be gay is to jump on the gay bandwagon. If you don’t vote for gay rights measures, if you don’t support same-sex relationships, and worse of all, if you don’t attack everyone who doesn’t get in line with the way gay people are supposed to be, you are a traitor to the cause. Yeah, groups like Truth Wins Out and movies like Outrage are set on attacking us, our marriage, and the groups that support us. This group attacks NARTH. Have you looked on the forums in the last 5 years, including this forum? If you say anything about positive about ex-gays you are immediately ruthlessly attacked. No I am quite aware that I am a living taboo - not to be seen or spoken kindly of. I am a minority that is fair game for pot shots. You have no idea what it is like to be in that situation. You and this web site are making it worse.
And it isn’t like I am caving to pressure from the other side. They said to shut up. They said to deny who I am and pretend to be straight. They told me not to stand up in sacrament meeting and say I was attracted to men. Believe me, I have the balls to do whatever I want to do. I use my real name on this forum for all to see who I am. And I have the balls to stand up and defend mixed-orientation marriages and defend Evergreen and ex-gay groups even in a toxic forum that says we are miserable sheep and our wives are therapeutic sex-objects.
And your “statistics” are dead wrong.
This paper discusses the reasons why gay people seek therapy.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3658/is_200301/ai_n9230939/?tag=content;col1
When you read it you will find the reasons are not as uniform as you imagine. Many want to save an existing marriage (is that such a crime?) Others want to enter a marriage, which I highly recommend. when done correctly There is also fear of lack of monogamy and disease. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112998.php
You also need to brush up on the effects of ex-gay groups. The most recent report says that ex-gay groups counteract and buffer minority stress, marginalization, and isolation. It helps change sexual orientation identity. One quote I thought was cool was that ex-gay groups acted like “a refuge for those who were excluded both from conservative churches and from their families, because of their same-sex sexual attractions, and from gay organizations and social networks, because of their conservative religious beliefs.” http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
It isn’t just me who feels I am excluded from gay organizations. Scientific studies prove it. Yeah we also have to deal with all that crap about us being filthy, disgusting perverts like other gay people, but you adding to it that crap that we have no balls to make our own decisions in our life isn’t making it any easier for us. Do you think because we are trying to live the commandments of God all of a sudden people welcome us and stop saying bad things about gay people? Heck no! They blame us for even having the attractions in the first place. The idea that someone tries to be straight to be socially accepted is laughable because honey, it doesn’t work. They pressure you to be straight, but provide no support. No, we try to obey the commandments of God because we want to. Anyone who tries to do it for social pressure will fail miserably.
As far as changing sexual orientation is concerned, the report says “There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation.” (SOCE is sexual orientation change efforts, including ex-gay groups.) Lack of evidence is not the same as “been debunked and refuted by all reputable psychiatric and psychological associations”. No organization has ever said that these therapies don’t work.
And about “their significant cause of harm”. There is no evidence for that either. They have only mentioned potential for harm. The report says “Although the recent studies do not provide valid causal evidence of the efficacy of SOCE or of its harm, some recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have been harmed through SOCE, just as other recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have benefited from it.” The APA has not been able to find any valid evidence that SOCE causes harm.
Look. Some people think they have been harmed by it, and others say they have been helped. The American Psychological Associateion has said “anecdotal reports of “cures” are counterbalanced by
anecdotal claims of psychological harm.” All they are are claims. And people are claiming both.
Look. Some people didn’t have a good experience with ex-gay groups. That is fine and I accept that. Others have had great experiences. Everyone’s experience is different.
Please respect our decision to go to ex-gay groups. Please assume we are going because we want to. Please do not accuse us of caving into social stigma. Please do not attack our organizations or spread lies about them. In a world where everyone is against us, they are one of the few refuges that people with unwanted same-sex attractions can go where we will be loved and accepted. You attack them, you attack our lifeline.
CowboyII,
I can assure you that my wife is enjoying our marriage. I will not pressure her to come to my rescue. She is more private than I am and doesn’t like to express her emotions to strangers. You might be interested in Women of Worth, and organizations of women who support their husbands with SSA. http://northstarlds.org/wow/2008/bio.php
I am aware that my story may be used for evil purposes. My intention is that it could be a source of hope for people. I am against putting people in boxes. I advocate that everyone’s story is different. I support people in their decisions, whether celibacy, mixed-orientation marriage or same-sex marriage. That doesn’t mean I would be silent. I would try to counsel you against sitting in a pew in Church and pretending to love someone just so you feel you have a place in Heaven, but if you would insist, I would still respect your decision. To me, agency is a very prized goal. I would opposed anyone who took my story and said you should do like he did.
I highly doubt the Mormon Church would do something like that anyway. Elder Oaks said:
We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.
On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
I don’t think the church is going to use my story to put at risk children of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. They don’t like that. They wouldn’t encourage anyone to get married unless they feel a great attraction for their spouse. That is what I have advocated from the beginning.
Joshua, you wrote: No organization has ever said that these therapies don’t work.
Not so.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_expr.htm
That’s a pretty extensive list of organizations saying that these therapies don’t work.
Here is just one quote:
The APA statement said, in part:
“The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.”
“Many patients who have undergone ‘reparative therapy’ relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction.”
“The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.”
“Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes that in the course of ongoing psychiatric treatment, there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors.”
I respect your right to have any relationship you please. I think I have said that repeatedly. You can go to any group you please, and more power to you.
Just don’t pretend that because you managed to force yourself to be straight for religious reasons that it’s what everyone else should do. That is what you have promulgated time and again here with remarks such as “Others want to enter a marriage, which I highly recommend. when done correctly .”
I get it. I really want to understand your perspective, and you are just interested in promoting the ex-gay movement. You showed your hand quite clearly in this most recent rant at me, in which I dared to tell you what I have learned about the ex-gay movement from people who were seriously harmed by it, and by what professionals have to say about it.
Thank you. I get your perspective loud and clear now.
PS to Joshua: You made a comment about how, since I went to MCC, I had only obviously heard bad things about reparative therapy.
I had GLBT friends before I ever set foot into MCC. I know better than to take one person’s word for something, which is why I did some research for myself.
The article that you cite? It tells psychiatrists and psychologists to NOT tell patients that their sexual orientation can change, but to help them reconcile their religious beliefs with the truth about their sexuality. Thank you for providing it.
I believe that you are happy. I am glad for that. You are the exception, not the rule. You have made your position obvious: promotion of the so-called “ex-gay movement” here on a site whose purpose is to provide support for marriage equality.
I liken this to Tybalt’s remarks about Romeo: “He has come to fleer and scorn at our solemnity.” It seems that your purpose is at odds with the website’s, and to condemn me and those who participate here on behalf of the website’s stated purpose in order to promote your own causes me to wonder whether you are in the right place.
My best to you and your family.
Part of the reason for this website’s existence is to provide a place to share stories about how our lives intersect with homosexuality and religion and politics and marriage. Joshua’s been telling us his story in a fairly respectful, if firm and insistent, way. And when we consider that he felt he and his family were being attacked and/or denigrated by this post and by links on this site, and that he was coming in to “enemy territory” to begin with, well, that takes some integrity in my book. He’s certainly behaved better than a lot of the self-righteous types who (continue to) surf on over, pop in and tell us we’re all going to hell for not agreeing with their perspectives, or those who read us here and then complain about us elsewhere without ever joining in the conversation.
If nothing else, we’ve seen that we are all capable of gleaning what we need from scientific studies and of making assumptions about others’ lives based on our own experiences. And we’ve also seen that even though we vehemently disagree about the paths we’re taking, we can still wish one another the very best on their journeys.
That’s why it’s so important that we sit down every once in awhile and step away from the echo chamber and listen to one another. We are all people who love our friends and families and who are doing our best to understand a very complex situation. Many of us are “exceptions to the rule” with regards to our views on marriage in our corners of the world. Part of our needs, as exceptions to the rule, include standing up and telling others that broad generalizations about a particular group of people always have specific cases that go against the norm. We all seem to have a desire to tell those around us that, “there is another way. I know there is, because I am living that other way.”
Fiona64,
I never said sexual orientation can change. I haven’t claimed that my own sexual orientation has changed. My message has always been that some gay people can find happiness and fulfillment in a mixed-orientation marriage. I said there was no evidence one way or the other. The article I cited agrees with me, which is the most recent statement by the APA. It says you can change your sexual orientation identity (not sexual orientation) and go on and live a happy life with a heterosexual orientation identity.
The article does say you can reconcile religious beliefs with the truth about their sexuality. That has always been my message. Many gay people believe that same-sex relationships are immoral. My message is that those religious beliefs can be reconciled with sexuality. This web site claims that it cannot.
I did say there was potential for harm. Your quotes backs that up. Yes, it is risky. Yes, it is dangerous. That is why I would never pressure anyone into it. I argue for the freedom to chose. I personally think there are more risks with a lifestyle where one pursues same-sex relationships. I chose the less risky option.
I really don’t see what the quotes you cited have anything to do with Evergreen. It attacks reparative therapy, which Evergreen does not advocate. Evergreen does not advocate any particular form of therapy, but simply provides information on several of them. I have never supported reparative therapy here.
The stuff you cited, about not lying to the patient, not saying you “should” do one thing or the other, and the like are all things the Evergreen supports. http://www.evergreeninternational.org/about_us.htm#stand” rel=”nofollow”>This is what Evergreen says it stands for:
I really don’t understand how you can say Evergreen forces anything on anyone. All we want is equality.
You say you respect my right to any relationship I please, yet you won’t let me defend it. It seems to me that you will only respect my right if I admit it is inferior. You also want me to admit that everyone who agrees with me is wrong. Excuse me but there is a reason I chose what I did. I think it is the best choice. If I didn’t think it was the best option, I wouldn’t have gone after it. I highly recommend it to others, but would never say that is what they should do. And I would never attack anyone else’s choice, or the organizations that support them, as you have done.
Let me see if I can explain this better with an analogy. My favorite color is red. It is my favorite color because I think it is better than the other colors. I haven’t, but let’s imagine I joined a facebook group that says Red is the Best! I highly recommend red to anyone around me. However, I won’t ever say that red should be someone else’s favorite color.
Now you have this organization that claims to promote color equality which says both red and yellow is wrong and people who chose red or yellow are bad people. Blue is apparently the “only” way to go. I get on and say red is great, and I respect people who chose yellow or blue. I get accused of trying to push everyone to chose red. They admit that maybe they could see how someone could force themselves to want to chose red and maybe get that to work, but that is the worse option and I am the exception and I am allowed to choose red as long as I keep quiet nor try to defend my choice. They knew tons of people who tried to like red, but in the end found out blue was better. The “Red is the Best” facebook group is evil because it forces everyone to choose red when everyone should choose blue. When I do try to defend my decision and my group, I get accused of forcing my opinion on others.
I think mixed-orientation marriages are awesome! I love it and highly recommend it to others. I think celibacy or same-sex relationships are good alternatives. Everyone should be able to choose. I wouldn’t attack any group that defends those positions.
Cowboy is worried that my example might be used to attack others, yet he has no problem with using Larry Craig against us. You attack ex-gay groups and then when I try to defend them you accuse me of trying to promote them. Do you seriously expect me to just sit here and take it when you attack my way of life? How is that respecting my choices? Expecting my to be silent when my way of life is attacked makes me feel as if my choice is inferior to other choices. I will not be reduced to a second-class citizen. I loved my time in Exodus and Evergreen. It helped me be who I am today. I will not be silenced on that. I totally understand and respect people who had different experiences. You really don’t respect my views if you won’t allow me to share my story. I honestly don’t know where you get that I am trying to tell people what they should or should not do. No one else’s lifestyle is being attacked. It is only my lifestyle that is being attacked and I am only trying to defend it.
Is marriage equality and ex-gay groups mutually exclusive? If marriage equality isn’t broad enough to cover those in ex-gay groups, it is NOT marriage equality. A group supporting marriage equality should not have posts attacking marriage for some while promoting it for others. That is called marriage inequality.
Ex-gay groups are awesome! Mixed-orientation marriages are awesome! You might think they are morally wrong, but don’t push your morals on us! Allow me to defend my choice. Allow me to act as if my choice is equal to other choices. I will not be treated as a second-class citizen.
Joshua wrote: You really don’t respect my views if you won’t allow me to share my story.
Where was your story not shared, Joshua? Was your post deleted? Were you prevented in any way from telling people your opinion?
Oh, wait. None of that happened, did it?
Joshua also wrote: I honestly don’t know where you get that I am trying to tell people what they should or should not do.
Gosh, I don’t know, Joshua. Maybe it’s when you write things like this: I think mixed-orientation marriages are awesome! I love it and highly recommend it to others.
Or maybe it’s when you write stuff like this: Ex-gay groups are awesome! Mixed-orientation marriages are awesome! You might think they are morally wrong, but don’t push your morals on us!
I’m not pushing my morals on *anyone,* Joshua. Am I out there campaigning to break up your marriage, or to make your marriage illegal (you know, like your church is doing to people who want to marry their same-sex partners?)? No? Hmm …
I’m glad it works for you, Joshua. I have never said anything different from that. A whole lot of *other* people have experienced significant harm from the same experience. The fact that you can’t seem to understand that the organizations you come in here praising as so awesome (Exodus, NARTH and Evergreen) have hurt a whole lot of people bugs the heck out of me. Your experience is yours, and I don’t have any reason to disbelieve you. As Laura pointed out, there are whole lots of people who are the exception.
There is no point in further dialogue, Joshua. You’ve made your agenda abundantly clear. You have, IMO, reached the point of “methinks thou dost protest too much” for me to believe that your agenda is in understanding, discussion or anything other than promotion.
Again, my very best to you, your wife and your family. I hope that you all find the peace you are so clearly seeking.
Careful Joshua, you’re putting words in my mouth. My respect for you and a meaningful dialogue is slipping away. I never mentioned anything about Larry Craig and I don’t know what logic you are trying to infer. Larry Craig is not like you. He never acknowledged his homosexuality and he still doesn’t. You do.
My concerns about attacks: Your self-described success in a mixed-oriented marriage and inference there are many others like you will be used as an example from pulpits, Priesthood meetings and forums. You know full well many like me will have to defend that not only we are not born this way but, now, we didn’t try hard enough to pray the gay away.
You can say that you know your experience to reach your mixed-oriented marriage is not for every gay but you have to admit it puts almost all gays in a defensive mode. People will say that if Joshua can do it, then other gays can too. I just had a female co-worker tell me that I just haven’t found the right girl yet. What a kick in the groin that was.
I believe you are a rarity. The vast majority of mixed-oriented marriages I am familiar with are really shams. The best examples I know personally are compromised relationships; where there is a lack of trust and their motivation to stay as a couple is for reasons other than love: i.e. peer pressure, fear of societal scorn, monetary, etc. The Women of Worth you referenced is not an indication of success of mixed-oriented marriages. Actually, it is a recognition of the problem.
You say your relationship with your wife is a success. I have to respect that. I would gladly let you to shout from the rooftops your success but I want to see others like you to do the same. In that same vein, I would love to have my friends have the chance to show their success as gay couples. There has been far more demonization of homosexual couples by what is said in our schools, in our workplaces, in the Legislature and from church pulpits than any negativity you have experienced.
Joshua, I’m really confused by your posts. I hope you can clarify for me how you think 1 guest post talking about his experience and his feelings means that this site is against mixed marriage.
And, since this post was about the LDS church, when you made the following statement were you talking about the LDS church:
“I am defending an institution and an organization that tell people that they can be happy if they are gay — and that if they are gay, they can be married to the person they really love and are most attracted to.”
Because if you are, then you are not quite right about that or the leaders would not have called on members to support Prop 8.
And finally, could you please explain how anti-hate laws take away freedom of speech in the manner described below
“All branches of government should avoid actions or decisions that would inhibit free speech about, or the practice of, freely chosen alternatives to homosexuality. Of particular concern are laws regarding hate crimes and sexual orientation that may be construed to make it illegal to promote or even speak about alternatives to homosexuality.”
Thanks, for any clarification.
Sheryl
CowboyII,
I misread your comments about Larry Craig. I thought you were using him as an example of all mixed-orientation marriages, not as an example of gay people cheating on his wife. Wrong analogy. However, I still do not understand why you don’t think my story should be shared. I feel that by putting a stigma on mixed-orientation marriages, you push those who are into mixed-orientation marriages into the closet. I think there is a reason so many people in mixed-orientation marriages aren’t open and honest with their spouse. I do not think society let’s them be open. I feel if the idea of openly gay were expanded to include gays in mixed-orientation marriages and gays who are celibate for religious purposes, then more people would feel free to be out of the closet. I am sorry that puts gays in a defensive position, but I don’t think that is sufficient reason to push the rest of the gays in the closet.
Fiona64,
I guess I really don’t understand what you are saying. You obviously think ex-gay organizations aren’t good. I can understand and respect that. I feel when you censure me for saying they are good, you are applying your beliefs that they aren’t good to me. I feel that is pushing your morals on me. That is why I accused you of pushing your morals on me.
You also say you respect me and my decision, but then you censure me for recommending mixed-orientation marriages. I don’t understand. It makes me feel as if you only respect me if I either don’t believe mixed-orientation marriages are good or don’t say it is good. To me that is not respecting. Why would I get myself into a marriage I didn’t think was good?
I must admit the comments on ex-gay organizations put me on the defensive. I am sorry. I have had the weekend to recover. I do want to continue the conversation, but I will not change my mind that ex-gay organization and mixed-orientation marriages are good, nor will I be silent about that. I believe I can respect other people’s morals without changing my own.
A pivotal point in my life was when a good friend recited this to me:
It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not.
Andre Gide
French critic, essayist, & novelist (1869 - 1951)
Sheryl,
My comments were in reference to mixed-orientation marriages. Many people say that gay people cannot find happiness and fulfillment in an opposite-sex marriage, including both the Iowa and California Supreme Court when they legalized same-sex marriage. The Mormon Church and Catholic Church are one of the few churches that stand up and say that gay people are capable of entering into a mixed-orientation marriage to the person they really love and are most attracted to. Many others, including this site, say they cannot. As a man who did enter into a mixed-orientation marriage to the person I really love and am most attracted to, I find this defense, not only refreshing, but empowering. I take great offense to Quinn’s call for the Church to stop defending that.
Anti-hate laws don’t necessarily have to conflict with ex-gay organizations. In Washington DC, gay right activists tried to discriminate against ex-gays saying that their message constituted hate speech. The judge, however, actually granted ex-gays special status as a protected class, so now both gays and ex-gays are protected from hate speech. In Arlington, a school tried to stop an ex-gay organization from handing out flyers, but again, our freedom of speech was protected. Another example is when a Georgia school called the Mormon Church “anti-gay” because of the teachings on homosexuality. Those like me who have been blessed by the Church’s teaching on homosexuality have found that problematic. Again, a judge stepped in and protected the Church. I am grateful to live in the US where our freedoms of speech and the right to pursue happiness are protected. Still, it is sad that so many people try to limit our speech and we have to go through expensive trials to try to protect them.
However, you need to realize that Evergreen International is an international organization, and it does not just speak for the situation in the US. In Canada, Chris Kempling was cited for professional misconduct and suspended for a month by the BC College of Teachers after he spoke publicly in favor of Christian-based conversion therapy on his own time. In Ireland, Iris Robinson, was investigated for suggesting that homosexuals could seek counseling so they could find happiness in mixed-orientation marriages.
I don’t know if the US could get that bad. You see how Miss California was treated for having an unpopular opinion. I think the thought is that the only reason you would want to enter a mixed-orientation marriage or go to an ex-gay group would be that you think it is a better alternative than same-sex relationships. The current thinking is the only way you would think that would be homophobia, therefore, anyone who supports us must support homophobia.
While I completely support a person’s desire to live a life they want, I will protect my right to chose my life the way I want to. The hate speech laws in Canada and Ireland, as well as the recent Supreme Court decisions in California and Iowa, put my marriage at a disadvantage. I will not be silent on that.
That is what Evergreen is concerned about. We are trying to protect our way of life and the ability to pursue happiness. Many people are trying to attack that. Laws against hate speech have reduced those like us to second-class citizens in other countries. It is a real concern.
It seems we’ve gotten lost in some weeds here, repeating arguments over and over and it’s time to get back to discussing the main points of Quinn’s paper rather than just the introduction to it.
The facts are that:
1 - The church in the past believed homosexuality was something akin to a choice which could be unmade or a disease which could be cured.
2 – As part of a way to cure homosexuality, church leaders encouraged homosexuals to marry heterosexuals.
3 – The church no longer holds to the teaching that homosexuality is a disease to be cured and President Hinckley said, as Quinn noted in his post, “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or behavior.”
4 – Instead, church leaders teach that all marriages are sanctifying to the spouses involved and, as such, heterosexual marriage is the ideal toward which all who have the ability to do so, should strive. As recently as March 9, 2010, Elder Glenn L. Pace taught BYU students about “the divine nature and destiny of women and the sacred role they play in the sanctification and purification of men.” He also taught, “There is a limit to our spiritual development as long as we are single. There is a spiritual development that can only be obtained when a man and a woman join their incomplete selves into a complete couple. Just as conception requires the physical union of male and female, perfection requires the union of the very souls of male and female.” In other words, heterosexual marriage is an important doctrinal tenet of the LDS faith.
Instead of focusing on these four little pieces of information, though, let’s discuss the other stuff Quinn said. He’s made some important suggestions about supporting homosexuals and about adapting policies in ways which do not require any changes to LDS doctrine yet which would make a significant difference in the lives of homosexual Saints and their families.
And he’s asked for a sea change in the way local leaders counsel members “struggling with same-gender attraction.” He suggests two very important questions these leaders should ask themselves prior to suggesting male-female marriage to homosexual members seeking marital guidance.
How would our lives be different if our church experiences incorporated Quinn’s suggestions?