I recently read an article that I enjoyed. For the most part, I agreed with the author. But one thing bothered me. A gay young adult told a friend he wanted to get married because he wanted a full life, wanted children. The friend replied, "What about the woman?" So with that thought, he eventually decided that his desires were not fair to the women he might date. I will agree that this argument is great support for being honest with those you court. It would be totally unfair for a gay guy to hide his orientation from girls he courts. However, I don't like the way the argument has been used in general. Every insecure person who doubts their own worth could use this argument to avoid dating. How about a guy who cannot have kids. Is it wrong for him to date? I mean, what about the girl? Is it fair to get married to someone when you can't offer the possibility of children to your wife?
I'm not saying that it's okay for a person to marry someone to whom they are not attracted. Rather, I'm saying that the argument given is not a good one. Basically, since someone is gay, should he give up any dreams of having a family, because it's not fair to the girl, is a terrible argument? Replace "gay" with "ugly" or "disabled" and the same argument shows its wrong headed nature.
Rather, when a guy doesn't really love the girl, feels trapped into the marriage by their culture, but is constantly wishing his life was different, well, that can lead to marital problems and often divorce. It shouldn't happen, but it does. And the guy doesn't even have to be gay. Saying "no" to such a marriage is completely defensible. But please use a reasonable argument.
It is incredibly unfair to the woman. Examples abound in those voices videos. In every single one the pain in the woman is so so evident. Yes, even in Josh Weed's. Until the nonsense about how noble it is for a gay man to marry a woman is, this will carry on. The misogyny and ultimate lack of concern for women are so disturbing. You have to wonder why there are so many fewer lesbians marrying straight men than gay men and straight women. Ideally, gay men should marry lesbians. Equal loss on both sides.
ReplyDeleteUnder that argument, I suppose it's unfair for a disabled man to marry a non-disabled woman. The pain and suffering she must go through. To even hope to be married would be misogynistic of the man.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most damaging thing you are doing is ignoring completely what the people say and impose your own interpretation. You would not approve of people doing that to you. Your statements are just as bad as those who claim that "when someone says they are gay, they are just confused. The confusion in their faces is so evident. Until the nonsense about how noble it is for these confused men to marry other men, this will carry on. The unnaturalness and ultimate lack of concern for family values is so disturbing."
Maybe you think people like Josh Weed should just, as it's said, "Don't ask, don't tell," because being open about such things would be so damaging.
Please try to avoid completely discounting and disrespecting other people's views in future comments. You are using precisely the kinds of arguments that have traditionally been used against those of minority orientations in the past.
No. I applaud Josh.because in Mormonism, what he is doing is considered. brave. Of course it has been and will continue to be.misused by some Mormons. Comparing homosexuality to a disability doesn't really work, in fact, it is rather offensive. It is misogynistic in many cases for a gay man to marry a straight woman. The woman is expected to not have an issue with her husband's desire for men and if she does, well, buck up it is all for the kingdom. Worst still is the idea that the men can have special relationships with.other men to fill their needs, as long as that doesn't include sex. No thought whatsoever seems to be given for the woman maybe needing special relationship s with straight men to fill her needs. If sexual compatibility is.important. to her, that is minimized by saying well, sex isn't the only thing in a relationship. Many gay.Mormon men seem to be so thankful to their wives.for being able to be.married to them. Her needs are completely ignored. Misogyny is.not just about physically.abusing women, it is also about putting them in situations where they have to deny their own needs in order to insure that heir husbands get into the highest level of heaven. The man's needs are always first and foremost. I still think gay and lesbian Mormons of the opposite sex should marry each other rather than expecting straight women to deny themselves a straight partner. I am thinking that there are far far fewer gay Mormon women married to straight men. why is that? Is it because men want a wife who.us straight? Where is the call fir that to happen?
DeleteI'm curious about your definition of misogyny. The idea that a woman cannot be fulfilled without a man who is strongly attracted to her might be considered very misogynistic by many. The example I gave about a disabled man was not intended to equate homosexuality with a disability, but to show that the argument you used could easily be applied to other situations, like disabilities, to show why I thought the argument was flawed.
DeleteI agree that it would be very wrong for a man to marry a woman and hide his gay orientation from her. There are definitely some women who have needs that a gay man would not be able to fulfill, and they should have the information to act on that fact. However, saying that ALL women have the exact same needs in a relationship is naive. I think the woman herself should have some say in the matter, don't you?
The bigger concern I have with your argument is the idea that we should cordon off the gays and lesbians together and only let them marry each other. That strikes me as very offensive. I don't think you have thought through the ramifications of that kind of argument very thoroughly.