One concern that many people have raised in the comments of other blogs is that if a man is attracted to other men, it is unfair to ask a woman to marry him. She is deserving of his wholehearted adoration, and should not have to compete with men for his infatuation. My usual response to this argument is that the bar is not raised that high for heterosexual husbands, why should we have a different standard for those with gay orientation? (Nobody complains that a man shouldn't have married his wife because she may still have to compete with other girls for his attention.) But I think that there is some other misconception behind this argument that I would like to address.
What should be the foundation of a marriage? People get married all the time for a host of different reasons. That's fine. But how is their love built after they are married, and what patterns of behavior tend to lead to more stability and long term happiness? I am no marriage expert nor do I have a background in counselling or anything like that, but I do have my own experience, and I'll try to explain my thoughts.
In the musical, "The Fiddler on the Roof," Tevye and his wife, Golde, have been married for 25 years. They were reared in a culture that encouraged arranged marriages by the village matchmaker. But the culture starts to change, and that prompts Tevye to ask Golde a question: "Golde, do you love me?" Golde is surprised by the question and does not understand why she is being asked, so Tevye explains.
T: The first time I met you was on our wedding day. I was scared.
G: I was shy.
T: I was nervous.
G: So was I.
T: But my father and my mother said we'd learn to love each other. So now I'm asking, Golde, do you love me?"
After thinking about it, Golde realizes, "For 25 years I've lived with him, fought with him, starved with him, 25 years, my bed is his. If that's not love, what is?" and decides that she does love him.
I think that this captures an important principle. True love is not built on infatuation, but on sacrifice and intimacy. I'm not saying that it's bad for a man to find his wife attractive. I'm attracted to my wife (the only girl ever with that distinction) and that's a good thing. But that shouldn't be the foundation of a couple's love and marriage. I suspect that if physical attractiveness is the foundation for a marriage, it is much less likely that the marriage will succeed in the long run, regardless of gender or orientation. But if both partners sacrifice for each other and work to cultivate intimacy in their marriage, long term success and happiness are far more attainable. At least that is what I've seen in my limited view.
Some weeks ago a brother said in sunday school that love is a decition and I believe that too. What I mean is that many marriages, at dome point, gets so hard that it's just your decition to stay in it that keeps you there. You make up your mind to love even if it's hard, that's the sacrifies you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm totally with you on what a marriage is built upon. But people are different and to some physical attraction is more important than to others, even though not many marriages will survive on only that.
Just a little thought I had. Thanks for charing your thoughts!
I don't know about that. Women deserve to have a husband that is sexually attracted to them. It's interesting - Mormons put such a heavy emphasis on sex only being a good thing within a straight marriage - but then gay Mormons (and sometimes their wives) seem to spend a whole of time emphasizing how sexual attraction isn't important. But then they'd have to think that in order to be okay with marrying a woman.
ReplyDeleteMormonism, like most other organized religions, is patriarchal. As such, it is no surprise that a woman's needs - sexual or otherwise - are kinda disregarded here. People can rationalize almost anything, yes? But when a woman is alone with her thoughts lying in bed at night in the dark and her defenses are down - just maybe she's thinking darn it, I want my husband to just really really want me sometimes. But hey, patriarchy. Her needs come second in the race to the Celestial Kingdom.
I don't think I can adequately express how much I love my wife. She really is my other half. She completes me in a way that I don't believe any other person on this planet could. At the same time, my orientation is exclusively gay. I think I wrote the above post as an attempt to explain how this is possible, but in reality I don't fully understand it. I do know that people try to discount the health of marriages like mine on the basis that only a straight man could love a woman. My point is that love is composed of so much more than just initial attraction, that to make some kind of litmus test for love based on that produces incorrect conclusions.
DeleteYour remarks about the Church would be considered a red herring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
It would indeed be a red herring if it weren't true. The patriarchal nature of Mormonism is indisputable. The belief in Mormonism that those in gay relationships won't get into the Celestial Kingdom is also true (not saying it out loud often doesn't make it not true).
DeleteI am not speaking particularly of your marriage.
It is my opinion that some gay Mormon men are marrying women in order to ensure their ability to get into the Celestial Kingdom. That is not a red herring, that is my opinion based on what I have been reading.
I do suggest that labelling someone's argument as a 'red herring'' etc, is a one way of attempting to discount what they are saying. I may express things flippantly, but it doesn't invalidate my observations.
On a side note, I've come to conclude that intellect has very very little to do with one's core beliefs. One can be super smart and yet cling tenaciously to concepts that are not necessarily true. In fact, some people will cling more to their intellect as a way to try to make their core beliefs make more sense to themselves and others.
I don't think you understand what a red herring is. It doesn't have to be false to be a red herring. A red herring is a statement that may somewhat relate to the topic, but doesn't actually address it. The topic at hand is the foundation of love in marriage, and that it can't be entirely attraction. Your statements about patriarchy and fretting women may be somewhat related, but they don't address the actual issue.
DeleteAs for the tangential concerns you bring up, they are reasonable concerns. But we shouldn't be so exclusive. I know that there are people who get married simply because they like the idea of being married, or they really want children, not because they love their fiance. I agree that it doesn't seem healthy, but I don't think it's limited to just mixed orientation couples. That's a problem with marriage in general.
Arguments about what someone deserves are more problematic. I have a friend who is paraplegic. He was so before he was married. It is a terrible burden on his wife, but I'm not going to argue that she doesn't deserve that burden. It's not a matter of deserving or not deserving. It's a matter of choices. She is willing to sacrifice, take up that burden, for the marriage that she wants with her husband who she loves.
My point is that marital love is something that is developed over a lifetime of relationship development and sacrificing for each other. An initial attraction may start it off, just like a talent with piano may kindle an interest in being a pianist, but only tens of thousands of hours of practice will make an accomplished pianist, regardless of initial talent.
If a spouse is not going to develop that relationship, then that's a problem, I agree. But it's a general marriage problem not restricted to mixed orientation marriages.
Okay, the "tens of thousands of hours" might be overkill. The estimate of 10000 hours comes from Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" and is probably only true on average, not some magic number. A 1993 paper in Psychology Review puts it at 10 years of regular deliberate practice. Either way I think the point is still valid. Natural talent might kindle interest, but is not necessary for developing a skill at a high level. Only diligent practice can do that.
DeleteI've found it to be a quite common argument in mixed orientation Mormon marriages that heck, all marriages have problems and our problems are basically the same.
ReplyDeleteThat is seeming more and more to me like a rationalization. No matter how much someone insists that their homosexuality is but a tiny tiny part of them, it plays a role in their marriage. I've read enough from women in these relationships who are absolutely insistent that all is okay, there are no problems related to my husband's homosexuality, I'm fine with his attraction to other men, he's really learned to control it through not masturbating, and etc. That kind of rationalization, year after year, is going to exact a psychological toll. Because this is finally coming more out into the open, means that there hasn't been a chance to do studies on the psychological effect on women in these types of marriages. Obviously, the testimony of a few that say it is all just fabulous, is not a study. I'd be very curious to see actual long term studies on this.
What is so concerning is that the Mormon Church, while not officially promoting mixed orientation marriages and having in the small print that they don't, aren't actively speaking out against them. As such, more and more gay Mormon boys are going to seek it out as a solution to their confusion and terror that they won't make it into the Celestial Kingdom(try as one might to downplay that, it's huge role in these types of marriages can't be dismissed) or that they will be ex-communicated or at the very least not allowed to partake in communion. You get the idea. And so, in many cases, the psychological and emotional toll on the men themselves and the women they are married to, won't be known for years and years. Again, pointing to a few successful marriages doesn't a study make. It seems that gay married Mormon men are fumbling around trying to satisfy, their, uh, gayness, by 'heathily' touching other gay men and being in their company so that they can cope. Is this based on sound psychological study? It's just another thing their wives have to dealwith - their husband's need to be 'healthily' touching other men so that they can cope and deal with their marriages.
Yes, huge tangent here. To perhaps grossly oversimplify: gay Mormon boys, having been taught from day 0 of their lives that in order to please God they must marry a woman and that all else is less than what God wants and to absolutely ensure entry into the Celestial Kingdom, such a marriage is needed(yes yes, there will be some single celibate folks in there too) are at times twisting themselves into pretzels(read a lot of those types of blogs) in order to find somewhere inside of them an attraction to a woman. Then he convinces himself and her that he is totally able to do this and not turned off by it and she, wanting to be married and in love with this gay boy (very common women falling in love with gay men) with some small part of her absolutely convinced that a. she is okay with this and b. that he will change (yes, despite the new talk that he won't, she is a young woman with hope in her heart and a testimony to bear) will go off to the temple and marry this guy. And then they will spend the rest of their lives dealing with any fallout. He'll need his SSA meetings where he can non-sexually hug and connect with men because there is a necessary fulfillment for him there. And the wife? She'll not only learn to accept the fact that her needs to be with a man who is fulfilled not my other men but by her (yes of course God first and foremost)are not going to be met and she'll learn it so well that in some cases she'll start preaching the gospel of mixed orientation marriage. and when the tough psychological times come up for her? Well, that's her sacrifice isn't it for the glory of the kingdom to come.
Let me explain a little something about myself. I'm not associated with any gay Mormon group. I personally have not interacted with any active Mormon whom I knew to be gay, and except for a few friends made here online, I still know nobody to be gay and active in the Church. Of course, nobody knows me either. As such, I recognize very acutely that people like me who don't particularly like to identify as gay are not covered in statistics about gays, mixed orientation marriages, etc. In fact, unless I or my wife became terribly dissatisfied in our marriage, it's very possible that nobody will ever know. So unless something vastly changes in our culture, I think the undercoverage makes any statistics dealing with mixed orientation marriages highly suspect. Basically, I'm saying that the sampling process will primarily pick up people whose marriage is not functioning well, but will be used to represent everybody. For me, this is fundamentally problematic, because it makes any opinion (including my own) largely based on biased samples, and arguments have no good source of data to search for a resolution.
DeleteNot only that, but it would be very easy for me to blame any problems in our marriage on my orientation. This further muddies the water when trying to understand the effect of orientation on marriage. I remember going to a marriage and family relations class organized by a previous stake. It was an incredible experience for me. It was taught by a professional family counselor, and it was so open and honest and refreshing. I learned that many of my insecurities were shared by a large percentage of other married men, most of whom were surely straight. I learned how healthy my own relationship was with my wife, and was surprised at some of the troubles other couples tended to have.
That being said, I totally agree with you that someone who gets married just to fulfill some kind of religious requirement is going to have a harder time developing a successful marriage. I know of heterosexual people who have done as much. I also know heterosexual couples who have "fallen out of love" after a few years of marriage. I suspect that if this particular event happens in a mixed orientation marriage, it would be blamed on orientation, even though it's a fairly common event in straight marriages.
All these things generally make me suspicious of general claims that mixed orientation marriages are somehow unhealthy. I realize that being as isolated as I am, I may not have the broadest or clearest view. My personal experience (I know a sample of size one is not significant) tells me otherwise. So the burden of proof is on the accuser. And unless the culture somehow changes dramatically, it's going to be very difficult to get solid proof one way or the other.
But, I agree with you wholeheartedly that anyone getting married needs to love their spouse, and be devoted and true to their covenants. They need to be fiercely loyal to their spouse. That's not just counsel for mixed orientation marriages, that's counsel for everybody.
I hear you. What makes gay Mormons stay in the closet do you think? Does the Mormon Church bear any responsibility for the fact that they have felt and still feel it sounds like the need to stay in the closet? Many folks seem to be so excited that the Mormon Church is becoming more open to people being honest about their sexuality but no one seems to be asking why the Mormon Church wasn't open for years and years, why there was an institutionalized silence. No one seems upset about that and that is part of what I don't understand - why so many anonymous blogs, so much fear - and I say this non-sarcastically - if the Mormon Church is God's one true church? Other religions may have had the same silence but they aren't claiming to be God's only church on earth.
DeleteI'm not even sure there was a closet until relatively recently. The idea of identifying based on orientation is a fairly recent phenomenon, and somewhat culture specific. I recall reading an article about Hispanic men in California who were married but had affairs with other men. They did not identify as gay, despite their orientations. It's at least partially a cultural thing.
DeleteAs for the Church, in the Doctrine and Covenants it is called the only true and living church with which the Lord is well pleased. The "living" part is interesting. The Church was not meant to be static, but adaptable, growing, developing, changing. I had a professor in college (BYU) who though it ironic that the Mormon Church is a very liberal church with a very conservative constituency.
I like to think of the Church like an individual. An individual is a child of God, and has the potential to inherit all the Father has. But in order to do so, the child must be allowed to grow, change, learn from mistakes, progress, etc. Similarly, the Church may be the true Church of Jesus Christ, but it still has to grow, change, learn from mistakes, and otherwise progress. The Church is making changes, but it's doing so very slowly and deliberately. I think Church leaders have learned from past mistakes to not change too quickly. But sometimes I wish they would just hurry it up.
That makes some sense to me. The living part is interesting - my concern would always be - what will they change? How can I know what will change completely (i.e. the church's stance on polygamy, blacks in the priesthood, etc)" I know that people say the church will never sanction gay marriage but they said the same thing about blacks in the priesthood and polygamy (and probably other issues that I'm not aware of).
DeleteThe conservative/liberal comment reminds me of a fundamentalist Christian pastor I knew - he always said he was a socialist at heart. Which I loved because Jesus was, after, all, a Jewish socialist.
It would be interesting to research further and find out why those Hispanic men didn't identify as gay - that same thing happens amongst men in the African American community (they call it living on the down low) but that has to do with internalized homophobia. So I think that homophobia plays a huge part in more machismo cultures like part of the black and Hispanic culture. Homophobia has become so ubiquitous that I think people forget that it actually exists and that internalized homophobia is huge and can take a lifetime to overcome.
I'm curious as to your definition of homophobia. When I was growing up, I associated "gay" with the flamboyant gay community that was developing. I had no tendencies toward effeminacy, extreme hairstyles and clothing, or other hallmarks of the movement. That is probably the biggest reason why I didn't identify as gay. I knew my orientation, and realized that it wasn't something I could change, but I didn't want to be associated with that cultural movement. I identify strongly as male, and don't find tattoos, piercings, extreme hairstyles, and the like attractive at all. I wonder how much of what is termed homophobia is a reaction to that highly visible culture rather than the orientation. (I know that the culture is much more diverse than that, but in defining phobias, we have to deal with perception.)
DeleteIt's an interesting thought. There certainly is reaction to what we might label extremism. And certainly the victims of gay bashing seem to be those who are more 'obviously' gay. Although there was a case in my city a few years ago when a man sitting in a gay bar - just sitting there, just being in a gay bar and got punched in the head by a straight man who said the gay man had looked at him. The man who got punched is now permanently and severely brain injured.
ReplyDeleteI don't know - you'd have to tell me - if the Mormon Church encountered lots of gay people who were just like straight people, or its perception of what that was - would it be more likely to sanction gay marriage? Homophobia is not just in the disdain of 'extreme' gay folks (and I know what you mean) but also in the denying of their rights, in the not allowing of them to partake in communion (sorry, I don't know the term for that in Mormonism), in not allowing them to hold the priesthood if they are in a gay relationship, etc. If all of that is just a matter of being turned off by the extremism of part of the gay community, then perhaps exposure to those who are gay and in gay relationships that aren't like that, would be most helpful. Ignorance, bigotry, even claims that God is against what we are against, often stem from the unknown. Just a thought.
That clears things up for me a little. Would you say a test for homophobia is not sanctioning gay marriage? If so, I feel it's very possible that the Church will never be free from of homophobia under that definition.
DeleteI think of a phobia as an irrational fear of something. There are definitely those who have an irrational fear of anything to do with homosexuality. And, yes, I think this is a huge problem in the U.S. culture as a whole, and among many Mormons specifically. But I don't think that the Mormon Church's definition of chastity as "no sexual relations except for between a man and woman who are married to each other" is driven by a fear of homosexuality. Nor do I think it is likely to change.
I've often thought 'phobia' was the wrong word in relation to homosexuality - because often it is not fear, but hatred, disgust, not liking something that you don't understand, etc. So I think phobia is the wrong word, not sure what would be better though.
ReplyDeletePhobia allows people to say, 'i'm not afraid of gay people, I just don't agree with their lifestyle.'' I think it is a good test for homophobia, disagreeing with gay marriage. Mainly because such an attitude stems from other attitudes - a dislike of gay people, a disgust and often a belief that God agrees with them and doesn't agree with gay relationships.
I also don't think the chastity thing in Mormonism will change and I don't think that it is driven by a fear of homosexuality - but to put it bluntly, I think it works out rather nicely that at present, the U.S. federal government doesn't allow gay marriage. That way folks can say, 'hey, it's nothing against gay people, it is all unmarried people.'' I think that eventually the Mormon Church will broaden their scope and include gay marriage as a legitimate marriage. I don't think this will happen for a long long time and there will be much fighting about it and probably folks leaving the church over it - but I think it will happen. I know that many feel the black issue isn't the same but really, it took until 1978 for the Mormon Church to reverse itself on a rather horrifically racist policy and to this day they discourage interracial marriages. I'm sure if you talked to folks who were around back then, some would say they fully believed that the church would never reverse its policy. Now most seem to want to shove it under the carpet, say it doesn't matter, it was in the past and perhaps even re-write the history a bit. And so maybe in 100 years or 200 years the Mormon Church will be re-writing this bit of gay history too. Honestly though if I were a gay Mormon man married to a woman, I would pray fervently that that change doesn't come in my lifetime - because my foundations would crumble. I read other blogs and I see almost a - a kind of 'look at the sacrifice I am making as a gay man by marrying a woman to help the kingdom of God. I will not be shaken from this sacrifice.' It's subtle sometimes and sometimes not so subtle (I don't get that vibe from you) but it's there in other blogs. Is it not homophobia to think that someone is helping God by not living a gay life? Perhaps similar if I said, hey, I'm half black but I'm going to only ever call myself Caucasian and try my hardest to look Caucasian and marry another Caucasian. This is a sacrifice I will make because I know God doesn't sanction the black in me. And besides, the black is just a small part of me, it doesn't define me. How shameful that would be. Folks don't seem to like the black comparison - then pick something else I say. But I find it hard to find something comparable that is equally as strikingly offensive.
I've seen people online ask "what if the Church changed its policy and allowed gay marriage -- what would you do?" It's a valid question. But when I think about it, I can't imagine anyone like my wife exists out there. I really wouldn't give up the wonderful marriage that I have.
DeleteAs for the policy on the Priesthood and African heritage, well, I have my own opinions about it that are fairly complicated and I won't go into all the details here. Suffice it to say that I think of it as a policy issue. But apologists had to try to come up with a reason for the policy, so they dug up obscure interpretations of scriptures so as to explain to themselves and others why the policy existed. But their explanations were quite wrong. (You'll find I'm not a big fan of traditional apologetics.)
I think of the definition of chastity as different because it's more doctrinal than policy. I still see apologists trying to come up with reasons for it, and they may get closer or further from the truth. But I do think that a change in chastity is much less likely than the change in Priesthood eligibility.
The other example often brought up is plural marriage. But in actuality, the Church never abandoned the doctrine of plural marriage, just the practice of it. In some sense, it still exists. (For example, my great grandfather's wife passed away, so he married again. If both marriages were sealed, then he could find himself married to both wives in the afterlife.) But the practice as it existed in the early days of the Church has been eliminated by policy.
Basically, if the doctrine is clear, then it's probably not going to change. But there really isn't any doctrine about extra melanin and the Priesthood. So it's possible for the policy to change. Similarly, there's no clear doctrine that excludes females from performing Priesthood ordinances, so I think it more likely that the policy on females and the Priesthood could change someday than the definition of chastity be adjusted.
Regardless, this is all somewhat speculative. More important to me is a change of attitude among Church members, to be more open to communication and less judgmental of others based on orientation. When I see young men refuse to show emotion because of the fear they might be seen as gay, that's homophobia, and it's not healthy. I also don't think it's particularly Church culture, but rather U.S. culture. And for now, that's the attitude I want the Church to fight.
It's great that you are working to get church members to be less judgmental and more communicative.
ReplyDeleteI would say though that it is largely church culture - it just depends on where your church is. If it is in Utah or Idaho, then church culture pervades wider society. If not, then it doesn't. Where I live it does not. There is still lots of homophobia amongst non-churched people but on the whole society is 'farther ahead' on this issue than the Mormon Church. Again, if you live in a society where the church is pervasive or where most of your (the universal 'your', not you particularly!) contacts are with other church members (except perhaps at work or the odd social event)then it may indeed seem that all of society is homophobic. In the U.S. I find it really depends where you live - New York City there is less homophobia, a small southern town, more, Utah, more, etc.
As for the issue of blacks and the Mormon Church - I haven't heard any apology ever from the Church, which I've taken to mean that it feels that it didn't do anything wrong. There does seem to be a whole lot of, for lack of a better word, rationalizing going on - well, it was policy but not doctrine, the mark of Cain as you mentioned and so on. I've read really racist things that some of the Mormon Church leaders have said in the past - and that also seems to get rationalized away - well, they weren't leader leaders, they weren't prophets, etc. It seems to me like the Mormon Church would just like the whole thing to go away - hence the seeming convincing of some members that it was in the past and that nothing until 1978 matters. And on and on until people finally get too dizzy from all of the spinning!
And yes polygamy does still exist here on earth as well. And yet I hear some Mormons saying 'oh, no, no, no, it's all one man and one woman.'' But it's not really, is it? As you say in the afterlife, there will be polygamy. Seems Mormons seem to think it's not okay here on earth but in the afterlife, polygamy is okay.
It is speculative but I think really important. As I've said there are all of these young gay Mormon boys who can now say they are gay but who are going to try to twist themselves and their psyche into convincing themselves that marrying a woman will work just fine for them. That is almost a bit a tragedy as gay Mormon boys feeling like God is rejecting them for even being gay - because they still are being rejected in the sense if they ever live out their homosexuality, they have been taught that God will reject them. Until that root is ripped out, it's all merely playing with the topsoil in my opinion.
Again, I think you misunderstand my vocabulary. Apologetics is the act of explaining one point of view in the language of another. Often it does indeed devolve into excuse-making, but it still has quite a storied history throughout Christendom.
DeleteLet me explain something about my relationship with my church. I'm most natural as a skeptic. My first reaction to a new idea is to reject it until I have examined it well and found a good reason to think otherwise (although my wife doesn't like this particular trait in me, sometimes). When I was very young, I had many opportunities to question and challenge my beliefs, but I did so with a mind open to many possibilities, and a determination to follow what I found. I received powerful experiences indicating the Love of the Lord for me, and a strong foundation for my faith in His plan and His prophets. That foundation, a part of the testimony that I can share, is very important to me, and a core part of my view of myself. When dealing with young gay members of the Church, it is important to remember that there is more to them than their orientation. Many people who honestly feel for their situation and want to help, actually make it worse by insisting that the faith of these young people is in vain, or by attacking their belief in the Church. At least, that is the way I would have perceived it when I was a young gay Mormon. So, rather than liberating young souls, people end up contribute to the feeling of being torn apart.
On a related note, I realize that you do not believe that the Law of Chastity as stated by LDS Doctrine is healthy for gay young men to follow. I disagree, and would have also disagreed when I was young. I honestly believe that the Law of Chastity is the healthiest road to follow, regardless of orientation. I know it can be difficult for many people of any orientation to follow the Law of Chastity, particularly when surrounded by the influences of the U.S. media and its tendency to over-sexualize everything. But in my perspective, long-lasting happiness is more likely found through the teachings of the Church than any other way.
I can't fault anyone for disagreeing with me. Everyone needs to find the answers for themselves. But I know what I know, I've experienced what I experienced, and that influences what I believe.