Export thread

There are many accounts of gay men and women leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) when they could not reconcile their sexual orientation with their faith.

I therefore found the following blog post intriguing and enlightening in many ways, and it seems as though it's getting a lot of media attention so here's a thread for it.

http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

I'm interested to see where else it pops up, so if you see other references, especially interviews, please post links.

I know you don't want this thread to turn into a mormon bashing thread, and I'm pretty sure this forum can steer away from that. I've never met anyone of the mormon faith that was anything but a nice person, and I know we have many members on this board, steinman included. But the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is one of the biggest anti-gay lobbies in the world, and try to use their full power to deny gay rights wherever their influence holds sway.

And that's not cool.

So what did you think about the blog post?

I think it's an interesting read and I'm very happy he found his life's calling, but as an atheist I have a real problem with basically denying his physiological and psychological identity based on the teachings of any religion, let alone Mormonism, which I consider to be - shall we say - lesser than most of the others. Note that this is all personal beliefs and if you are a believer that's perfectly fine. I realize that he's framing everything in his own image, but in most cases I think people attempting this style of life will just end up miserable and unfulfilled.

Again, I hope Josh and his wife have nothing but happiness and success, but I think that their solution is one for only a very narrow few.

I haven't had time to read the entire thing. If he has found a life that he loves and he's happy, then good for him. He's not effecting anyone but himself.

But my initial reaction is "Gay man happily married and in a sexual relationship with a woman? Doesn't sound like he's all that gay."

Ravenpoe said:

I haven't had time to read the entire thing. If he has found a life that he loves and he's happy, then good for him. He's not effecting anyone but himself.

But my initial reaction is "Gay man happily married and in a sexual relationship with a woman? Doesn't sound like he's all that gay."

Click to expand...

They address that. And on one level I understand it. But having said that I must point out that I'm attracted to women and it would damned difficult if not impossible to "get it up" for sex with a man without the aid of something like porn. He states that they have an active sex life due to the connection he has with her on a deeper level but I just don't understand it.

First off, I've known many a Mormon. They're, aside from peculiar hangups about what they eat and drink, regular folks like you and me.

Second, "gay" isn't binary. It's a sliding scale. Nothing says you have to be attracted to one or the other exclusively, but the way most straights think is that any noteworthy attraction at all to the same sex flags you as "gay."

So you could probably get nitpicky and say "he's not gay, he's bisexual." But to most folks, that's the same as saying "it's not white, it's alabaster."

GasBandit said:

So you could probably get nitpicky and say "he's not gay, he's bisexual." But to most folks, that's the same as saying "it's not white, it's alabaster."

Click to expand...

In the blog post he makes it clear he is not bisexual. He is only attracted sexually to men. He is able to have sex with his wife because he believes he has a deeper intimate relationship with her that allows him to look past his base sexual attraction. In other words, his wife is an exception, and a bus full of scantily clad bikini girls wouldn't give him a sudden boner.

GasBandit said:

First off, I've known many a Mormon. They're, aside from peculiar hangups about what they eat and drink, regular folks like you and me.

Second, "gay" isn't binary. It's a sliding scale. Nothing says you have to be attracted to one or the other exclusively, but the way most straights think is that any noteworthy attraction at all to the same sex flags you as "gay."

So you could probably get nitpicky and say "he's not gay, he's bisexual." But to most folks, that's the same as saying "it's not white, it's alabaster."

Click to expand...

I have known a few Mormons as well and they are great people (even if I think their beliefs are a bit wonky). But if you read the article, he out & out states that he's not attracted to women in any way shape or form. So in this case we can surmise that binary is in effect at least in principal. He states he's not attracted to any women except this one particular one.

Simple answer. He is lying or self-delusional. If he were in no way attracted to women in any way, shape or form, he would not be able to screw his wife multiple times, which he apparently has (and hasn't immediately run to the bathroom to vomit afterwards).

I like that he's admitted that this wasn't the right choice for all gay religious people. There are many different types of relationships, and it sounds like he carefully weighed his options and understood his choices. Good luck to them. I cannot imagine doing what they did, but I understand it. I had a friend in high school who was a lot like this--very traditional, very religious, an dreamed of having a traditional marriage and family.

Homosexual people can't choose their feelings and attractions any more than heterosexual people, so no one should blame them. It's when people's atypical lifestyles are a choice when it gets really hard to take in. Even seemingly open-minded people look at something like this and feel disgust or even pity. Hell, I feel a little sorry for him and his wife, but that's because I personally could never let go of my worries and insecurities about sex with someone who is openly gay. I have no idea how they are doing what they're doing; but if they and their children are happy and healthy, that's the important thing.

It still makes me sad and angry that the parameters set by religion force people into these hard choices in the first place. But as far as unideal marriages go, they seem to be okay. I'd love to be a fly on the wall, though... Because part of me is still having trouble with it.

GasBandit said:

Simple answer. He is lying or self-delusional. If he were in no way attracted to women in any way, shape or form, he would not be able to screw his wife multiple times, which he apparently has (and hasn't immediately run to the bathroom to vomit afterwards).

Click to expand...

Not being sexually attracted to a certain sex does not mean you are disgusted with that sex. Some straight women experiment with other women, but that does not mean all women are sexually attracted to other women, it's just not as taboo. I can't really fathom having sex with another man as I don't have attraction to them, but I know if I did, I wouldn't be disgusted by it, it would just be really awkward for me.

I think really he was fighting with himself over having the normal Mormon life, or giving into his attractions and having relationships with other men. In the end, he chose to be a devout Mormon, and married someone he was comfortable enough with as a friend. The sex part of the relationship is just something they do, since they feel their connection is not about sex, that it spiritually runs deeper then that.

As for how he even "gets it up". Well, we do have pills for that now.

ScytheRexx said:

Not being sexually attracted to a certain sex does not mean you are disgusted with that sex. Some straight women experiment with other women, but that does not mean all women are sexually attracted to other women, it's just not as taboo. I can't really fathom having sex with another man as I don't have attraction to them, but I know if I did, I wouldn't be disgusted by it, it would just be really awkward for me.

I think really he was fighting with himself over having the normal Mormon life, or giving into his attractions and having relationships with other men. In the end, he chose to be a devout Mormon, and married someone he was comfortable enough with as a friend. The sex part of the relationship is just something they do, since they feel their connection is not about sex, that it spiritually runs deeper then that.

As for how he even "gets it up". Well, we do have pills for that now.

Click to expand...

But from what I gather, he isn't using them, is he? And this isn't a case of a temporary tequila lesbian "experimenting." This is long term. It's also very cut and dry. He voluntarily chooses to have sex with a woman which he must get SOME fulfillment from or he wouldn't persist in it, and he also professes attraction to men in general. He just wants to pick his own label, but as we all reminded our resident furry, you don't get to pick your label - other people pick them based on predefined criteria. I only have sex with one woman, and NO men. That doesn't mean I can call myself Asexual.

GasBandit said:

But from what I gather, he isn't using them, is he?

Click to expand...

I didn't see him mention anything about it. I don't think his blog was really going into detail about how he gets erections. Just saying, using a pill to get hard requires zero actual sexual desire.

And this isn't a case of a temporary tequila lesbian "experimenting." This is long term. It's also very cut and dry. He voluntarily chooses to have sex with a woman which he must get SOME fulfillment from or he wouldn't persist in it, and he also professes attraction to men in general.

Click to expand...

Again, his "fulfillment" is spiritual. The fact he does it is partly because of his religion and another part because he cares for his best friend. I use the word "best friend" because that is what they were. They "dated" only so much in that she was there for him even when he confessed he was gay, during a time when coming out gay to the church would have been spiritual suicide. The fact she stayed with him, and that in the end he grew to "love" her (love does not require lust), he decided to put up with the fact he was not sexually attracted to her to instead have "loving" sex.

He just wants to pick his own label, but as we all reminded our resident furry, you don't get to pick your label - other people pick them based on predefined criteria. I only have sex with one woman, and NO men. That doesn't mean I can call myself Asexual.

Click to expand...

So would you say a straight man, stuck in prison and having urges, decided to rape ten guys over the course of his term. Now, by this "predefined" criteria, he obviously must be gay, right? Even if he gets out of prison and only has sex with women from that point on? It was my understanding that being bisexual meant one shows "sexual desire" to both sexes. He made it pretty clear he holds no sexual desire for women, only men. His wife became an exception because he wanted to follow the church, and she was his best, most accepting friend that he shared a love with.

He regularly has sex with a woman. He's not gay. There. Done.

All this semantic bullshit aside, I can respect a person for being nice and normal etc, but if they follow a belief that is closed minded and bigoted, I will have a lesser opinion of them. The matter of an anti-gay lobby effects me directly and if someone is of a faith which partakes in that, I will feel less of them for it.

ScytheRexx said:

Again, his "fulfillment" is spiritual. The fact he does it is partly because of his religion and another part because he cares for his best friend. I use the word "best friend" because that is what they were. They "dated" only so much in that she was there for him even when he confessed he was gay, during a time when coming out gay to the church would have been spiritual suicide. The fact she stayed with him, and that in the end he grew to "love" her (love does not require lust), he decided to put up with the fact he was not sexually attracted to her to instead have "loving" sex.

Click to expand...

That's some mighty fine spin, but it still boils down to him wanting to have sex with a (particular) woman, and following through on that desire repeatedly. He can call it "spiritual" all he wants, it's couching and it's malarky. If I get "spiritual" fulfillment from having sex with one particular child, does that make me not a pedophile? There's many a priest who'd probably be happy to hear that.

So would you say a straight man, stuck in prison and having urges, decided to rape ten guys over the course of his term. Now, by this "predefined" criteria, he obviously must be gay, right? Even if he gets out of prison and only has sex with women from that point on? It was my understanding that being bisexual meant one shows "sexual desire" to both sexes. He made it pretty clear he holds no sexual desire for women, only men. His wife became an exception because he wanted to follow the church, and she was his best, most accepting friend that he shared a love with.

Click to expand...

I categorically reject the contemporaneous and somehow conventional wisdom that if you don't have sex it will just build up until you just HAVE TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMETHING ANYTHING. To take it one step further and then say that the resulting actions of one's failure to control their urges absolves them of the labels associated with those actions is folly to the next greater magnitude. Yes, if you bone a dude in prison, you obviously have some gay inclinations. Perhaps you were able to control those inclinations through regular topical applications of vagina, but they were there and you acted upon them. You're still diabetic even if you take insulin religiously.

To reiterate in summary - it is not how you see yourself that defines you, it is your actions that define you. I can go around all day thinking "Boy I want to kill him, and him, and her, and him, and them..." and until I actually do anything of the sort, I am not a serial killer, or even a plain old murderer. Just a guy who pretends to be one in his head, however arduously.

SeraRelm said:

He regularly has sex with a woman. He's not gay. There. Done.

All this semantic bullshit aside, I can respect a person for being nice and normal etc, but if they follow a belief that is closed minded and bigoted, I will have a lesser opinion of them. The matter of an anti-gay lobby effects me directly and if someone is of a faith which partakes in that, I will feel less of them for it.

Click to expand...

I see your point and the fact that tithing to an organization such as this must be troubling to the very people against whom they discriminate, but I would say that this is in most cases tacit approval at best. I know that doesn't necessarily make it better, but the fact that the church does something does not mean that the rank and file worshipers feel this way. Look at Catholics and the fact that up to 98% of Catholic women aged 15-44 who are sexually active used birth control...when their church is 100% against it. So although you are against the Mormon church for their anti-gay activities, it does not necessarily mean that the individuals themselves are against it.

Sometimes the church - whatever church this may be - gives people something to hold on to and believe in. Let me put it another way. I support my government in the form of taxes. Yet the government does things that I don't think is right and discriminates against gays. I could do things to not pay these taxes and take a stand but I don't. Does this make me a bad person?

I pay taxes so I don't get arrested, I can't speak for you. Supporting a church, on the other hand, is a 100% free choice. I hate to use an example so extreme, but would you feel a bit less of someone for supporting the KKK? I would. Regardless of how good the person is or how I may like or respect them otherwise, if they choose to do something which goes against me personally, which infringes on my own basic rights as a human being, I will think less of them for it.

Dave said:

I see your point and the fact that tithing to an organization such as this must be troubling to the very people against whom they discriminate, but I would say that this is in most cases tacit approval at best. I know that doesn't necessarily make it better, but the fact that the church does something does not mean that the rank and file worshipers feel this way. Look at Catholics and the fact that up to 98% of Catholic women aged 15-44 who are sexually active used birth control...when their church is 100% against it. So although you are against the Mormon church for their anti-gay activities, it does not necessarily mean that the individuals themselves are against it.

Sometimes the church - whatever church this may be - gives people something to hold on to and believe in. Let me put it another way. I support my government in the form of taxes. Yet the government does things that I don't think is right and discriminates against gays. I could do things to not pay these taxes and take a stand but I don't. Does this make me a bad person?

Click to expand...

If my church did something I felt was wholly, morally wrong, or supported something I felt was wrong, I would find a new church. Hell, that's how we got so many different flavors of christcakes anyway.

Then again, I don't belong to any church, so take that for what you will.*

*Is there a church of bacon? I would join that.**

**Unless they hated gays.

Just my €0.02 (still worth more than your $0.02 of ocurse ); having sex with someone you'ren ot attracted to as a problem? Come now. I'm sure you know plenty of people who have had sex with a girl they didn't particularly fancy. Heck, if you're in a long term commited relationship, I'm willing to lay odds that, at least once, you've fantasised about someone else than your partner. Close your eyes and shoot for king and country, or how do they say it in English? I'm not attracted to men at all, but that doesn't mean that, if I was horny, I couldn't clsoe my eyes and stick it in a man, pretend it was a nice looking girl, and get on with it.

That aside: SeraRelm: I do understand you, and in this case, I even agree with you; however, I'd say there's a difference between a group wich has discriùination/hate as their raison d'être (such as the KKK), and a group that has other reasons to exist, and, as an "accident de parcours", also happens to be discriminatory/hate-fuelling. Anyone who joins the KKK knows full well he's joining a hate group. Nobody thinks he joined the boy scouts. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to be, for example, a Mormon, and not be aware of their stance on homosexuality, or to place very minor importance on it - or even be opposed to this point of view, but agree with them on other topics. Take a political party: it's quite possible to be a decent human being, and vote liberal because you're in favour of smaller government and less taxes. That the same party also goes in for more war -less peace and less abortions - more abandoned orphans is an unfortunate truth. This doesn't mean all liberals are anti-abortion.
I do think less of people for supporting a group/organisation with goals I perceive as wrong, I do'nt necessarily assume they agree with those views.

Just because he is physically with a woman does not mean he can't be gay. It could also mean that he still continues to lie to himself about who he is in an effort to not actually confront and deal with the conflicts between his sexuality and faith. Basically he has "passed the buck".

Honestly the only thing I get from this blog post is that this guy has a lot more issues than he is able to own up to, and his religion may be partially to blame for that.

So, can somebody tell me whether all this blog post does is just slight gay people for a "choice", or does it actually go somewhere genuine?

Because if it's just another one of those "I can tame the monster inside me through the help of Mormonism", :grandpaleaving.gif:

It's not like that at all, really. It's a lot more sincere about the situation (and a good read). I just sincerely disagree with the path he's chosen, as it whitewashes a level of cognitive dissonance that is unhealthy.

I also assert that the labels are interchangable for the subject matter in this particular instance. "I'm not (gay/bi), I'm (bi/gay)" is a meaningless distinction for the purposes of relating to the mormon faith. There, the issue becomes whether one is straight, or not. To pick nits over what kind of "not" is to digress from the heart of the matter.

but at the end of the day, is gay = bad?

because fuck that.

Necronic said:

It's not like that at all, really. It's a lot more sincere about the situation (and a good read). I just sincerely disagree with the path he's chosen, as it whitewashes a level of cognitive dissonance that is unhealthy.

Click to expand...

Quite. He says he's both gay and a devout mormon and apparently everybody's hunky dory with that, which shows the dissonance is not limited simply to the man in question. It's sort of like being both catholic and pro choice, or a jewish national socialist.
Added at: 16:58

ElJuski said:

but at the end of the day, is gay = bad?

because fuck that.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, the reader's digest verision is, "I'm gay and that's fine, and I'm mormon and that's fine, so I'm a gay mormon (who also has regular sex with his wife) and that's fine!" and others chime in "yes, that's fine!"

Meanwhile, the Mormon Church goes about its merry way trying to squish homosexuality wherever it find it as a matter of policy.

I'm just going to stay out of this one.

GasBandit said:

From what I understand, the reader's digest verision is, "I'm gay and that's fine, and I'm mormon and that's fine, so I'm a gay mormon (who also has regular sex with his wife) and that's fine!" and others chime in "yes, that's fine!"

Meanwhile, the Mormon Church goes about its merry way trying to squish homosexuality wherever it find it as a matter of policy.

Click to expand...

That man is deluding himself.

Bowielee said:

I'm just going to stay out of this one.

Click to expand...

I think you could add a lot to the discussion.

But, if we're thinking about your blood pressure... yeah, probably a good call.

ElJuski said:

but at the end of the day, is gay = bad?

because fuck that.

Click to expand...

He does use a variation of the Christian company line that I was taught: Feeling attraction to the opposite sex is not a sun. (The second half usually being, "but don't act on those feelings.)

If I can summarize what his feelings appear to be, Juice, it's that every relationship comes with compromise and possibly missing out on something. He's experiencing sex with a woman that is somehow satisfying to the both of them, giving him a traditional mother/father family that he wants. He says that he chooses this over having sex with men and possibly having a non traditional family.

Again, part of my brain goes, "well, all right," while another goes "I don't know..."

Sin* Is not a sin.

Bubble181 said:

I do think less of people for supporting a group/organisation with goals I perceive as wrong, I do'nt necessarily assume they agree with those views.

Click to expand...

If I may, I'd like to ask why you would think less of them in the case you mentioned. They do belong to the group, yes, but if as you said you don't know whether or not they hold a particular view associated with the group that you find to be wrong according to your own criteria, then on what do you base your lessened opinion of the person? Is it through the heightened probability they possess the particular view, or because they apparently do not hold that particular issue in a high enough priority to quit the group or make an attempt to change the policy, or some form of guilt by association?

If the dude's happy, he's happy, and hopefully his family is, too. But I wouldn't be surprised if this family gets weird in the upcoming years.

TommiR said:

because they apparently do not hold that particular issue in a high enough priority to quit the group or make an attempt to change the policy

Click to expand...

That one. Though I suppose it's not entirely true, I my have worded myself badly. Some of them will, once they find out about a particular view, leave the group or whatever.
And there may be an overriding reason that IS more importan the issue at hand; depending on what exactly the view is I disagree with or whatever... So, ok, I don't necessarily think less of a person for supporting a group with ideas they don't agree with.Hmm.

My favorite answer to this type of situation...

Sexuality is not a light-switch.

sixpackshaker said:

My favorite answer to this type of situation...

Sexuality is not a light-switch.

Click to expand...

I've seen light switches get stuck between positions many times.

If he is happy then good for him. For me, that entire situation is just unbelievably sad.

I could argue against the views of his religion or the views of society but really it all comes down to me just being really sad for the guy.

I hope everything works out for all of them.

SeraRelm said:

He regularly has sex with a woman. He's not gay. There. Done.

Click to expand...

Hey now, go easy on him. We all know that Heterosexuality is just a choice some people make.

--Patrick

I know I could be reading stuff into it, but to me that whole blog post sounds a lot like someone who spent a lot of time emotionally adrift and has come up with a house-of-cards series of justifications to cement some kind of coherent self-identity.

"Gay with a chance of spiritual ladybits" is a much simpler explanation than "I lean much, much more strongly to towards men than women, but my wife, who is my spiritual-soul-mate-partner-best-friend, fulfills just enough of my human need for close emotional companionship that she is the one woman to whom I am genuinely physically attracted and so maybe sexuality is far more a complicated spectrum of emotional and physical needs than anything else and labels suck".

But his wife looks like Ravenpoe ...

SeraRelm said:

But his wife looks like Ravenpoe ...

Click to expand...

Pfft, he wishes.

Exactly.

How are you always able to make me laugh?

Who?
Added at: 13:50
Oh, was checking in on my phone and it doesn't show ratings.