A fascinating post by a devout Mormon celebrating 10 years of marriage, co-written with his wife. Here is a sample:
7. Why do you not choose to be “true to yourself” and live the gay lifestyle?
First of all, I understand that when people refer to a “gay lifestyle” they are talking about a lifestyle that includes gay romantic and sexual relationships. But I want to point out that because I am gay, any lifestyle I choose is technically a “gay lifestyle.” Mine just looks different than other gay peoples’. My hope is that other gay people will be as accepting of my choices as they hope others would be of their choices.
But that doesn’t really answer the question. And it is an important question.
One of the sad truths about being homosexual is that no matter what you decide for your future, you have to sacrifice something. It’s very sad, but it is true. I think this is true of life in general as well. If you decide to be a doctor, you give up any of the myriad of other things you could have chosen. But with homosexuality, the choices seem to be a little bit more mutually exclusive. If you are Mormon and you choose to live your religion, you are sacrificing the ability to have a romantic relationship with a same-sex partner. If you choose a same-sex partner, you are sacrificing the ability to have a biological family with the one you love. And so on. No matter what path you choose, if you are gay you are giving up something basic, and sometimes various things that are very basic. I chose not to “live the gay lifestyle,” as it were, because I found that what I would have to give up to do so wasn’t worth the sacrifice for me.
92 Comments
How many standard marriage corruption arguments are demolished in just these few paragraphs!
This fellow would be the target of equal slanderous vituperation- if not greater!- than would NOM.
Just goes to show that the marriage corruption movement is really about imposing its anti-values on the rest of society.
But it isn;t working.
They can't win an election, the legislative victories are in jeopardy of direct repudiation by voters, and now the cutesy-pie legal scams have finally arrived at the point where SCOTUS is ready to deliver the smack down.
2012 is shaping up to be a very grim year indeed for the marriage corruption movement.
The artical in full:
Now “that” is more serious, than the average talk on the subject of sex and love, hetro and homo, family and children, life and manhood and womanhood.
And the biological family – that which the child deserves, whenever possible (it is, who he is).
The secular liberal version of this is hollywood director Stephen Daldry's (movie -Billy Elliot) marriage to a woman. He lived as openly gay for years - but settled down with this woman and had children.
Its not uncommon, its almost like the openly gay phase of their life is "sewing their oats" - and marriage and family represent the same longings as they do for everyone.... with the added benifit for "gay" men to settle down and get out of the lifestyle.
An aquantance of mine who does windows treatments and blinds has a lovely wife but is extrmeley effeminate. The rumour is that he is gay but stays basicly straight and faithfull for his marriage and children.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-85764/Gay-Billy-Elliot-director-marries.html
The only part of this that raises any questions for me is...Aparently they find their wives attractive enough to be aroused and have sex....and if so.....then what does that say??
Interesting that he calls himself "gay." I'd say he has same-sex attraction but has decided to not adopt the homosexual label. And that's an important point, not mere semantics, as in today's liberal culture, homosexuals demand that a young person who experiences ssa call himself gay and adopt the lifestyle that goes along with that label. This story demonstrates how the homosexual activists' perspective at the very least denies sexually confused children a choice and at worst denies them a normal, heterosexual life.
It's interesting that NOM would choose to highlight a story that goes against their claims and proves that being gay is not a choice:
"I want to point out that because I AM GAY (my emphasis), any lifestyle I choose is technically a “gay lifestyle.
There's nothing new or different about a gay man marrying a woman and having a family. That's been the default for gay men for centuries. The only difference here is that this guy is being public. I suspect this man will one day seek a more fulfilling same-sex relationship but, unlike some commenters here, I don't have a crystal ball. But I have known men who came out while still in their marriages to women with the idea they could make it work (usually "for the kids"). It turned out to be just a transitional period to divorce and committed relationships with men. I'm not sure how Rick thinks this "demolished" any pro-equality arguments or why NOM would even add the "same-sex marriage tag". Personally, I don't get this guy. It's really no different than a straight man marrying a gay man a and trying to have a fulfilling relationship. I suspect all the closet cases on the anti-gay side will push this story to make themselves feel better. The difference is that this guy has actually has enough b--ls to come out, even if his choices seem a bit misguided.
"I'd say he has same-sex attraction but has decided to not adopt the homosexual label."
Overcame, Which part of "I am gay" don't you understand? His story disproves your entire case.
14. When will you turn 15? Relax. You are loved. And you are free!
14th
Which part of making the distinction between desire & idenitity upsets your ideology?
14th, apparently my comment went right over your head. If he calls himself "gay," it is because he has bought-in to the rhetoric of the homosexual activists which equate same-sex attraction with being "gay."
"Gay" is a political label adopted by people with ssa who elect to accept their ssa as their sexual identity. This guys has clearly not accepted his ssa as is sexual identity as he is living a heterosexual life. He's not gay; he's just confused about what "gay" means.
In my perspective, homosexual attraction is another temptation by the enemy (satan) to get you to sin. There are many... alcoholism, gluttony, marital infidelity, and the list goes on. If you engage these thoughts and furthermore convince yourself that you are gay the enemy has won. Step one is to not entertain these thoughts. God did NOT create men and women to be attracted to the opposite sex. It is a lie.
I don't think he should call himself 'gay'. I don't know his complete story, but it seems to me that he is doing what, IMO, a person with SSA who loves God ought to do. Live his life for God and not himself. There are a lot of things I'd love to do--gossip, tell lies, etc., but God tells me not to do them, so I refrain. He's not gay if he's not in a same sex relationship. He may be bi-sexual, providing he's been in a relationship with a man in the past, but he's certainly not gay.
gay[ gey ]
adjective gay·er, gay·est,
1. homosexual.
You guys are the ones always trotting out the dictionary, centering your entire arguments around word definitions, and screaming that "words have meanings!". So why are you now trying to redefine the word gay?
"Which part of making the distinction between desire & idenitity upsets your ideology?"
Seriously? Fitz, it's been well established eons ago that you NOMers have no clue what a homosexual or homosexuality is. This whole "liberal" construct of sexuality NOMers krack on is hilarious. Well, so is most everything Overcame posts is as well.
This story is ridiculous. .
This is incredulously stupidly misleading. First, just because someone has a attraction to the same sex does not make them gay -so, being married does not make him gay and married. It makes him a heterosexual practicing married man. May people have attractions to many different things, same sex, objects, shoes, whatever, doesn't make them homosexual unless they choose to go that way. Now that it is publicly and socially accepted, most of them just go with it. There is always some gay activist out there willing to tell some young confused person why they should just follow through with their feelings. There is always some druggie out there who is willing to introduce drug use to them too -whether they chose to go along, that is another story. Man was not created to physically fit together with a man. It is NOT natural according to the Bible as well as common sense. We live in a very confused society where anything goes. And the gay activists speak alot louder and have more financial backing so they get heard alot more than the rest of us who believe we should adhere to the original teachings in Romans or Corinthians for example.
14th - "homosexual," like "gay" is an adopted political label; of course they're defined the same. BUT, because one experiences same-sex attraction, that does not automatically make that person homosexual or gay. Those label are choices that one makes.
Do you understand now? I know, it's hard when you've been fed by the homosexual lobby that your ssa means that you MUST be gay/homosexual.
The only problem I see with this article is that he thinks he is homosexual--homosexuality is a sin and if you have Jesus in your heart and believe that He is Lord of your life then the homosexual will realize that his sin is an abomination and will flee from it. Hate the sin but not the sinner.
Overcame - I actually do enjoy watching your logic acrobatics as you attempt to validate yourself. Really, this is good stuff.
homosexuality: noun
1. sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.
14th
Your response reminds me of what was called the "one drop rule" by the racists of old. Under that ideology, if someone had even one ancestor who was black he was considered black for the purposes of segregation..
It was an obvious attempt to maintain ideological purity and ease of use in the racist thought system.
The same thing is occuring with your insistance (& a telling one) on overcames obvious ability to seperate desire from idenitity. He is making the obvious point that just because one expieriences SSA dosent mean that person then needs to embrace the totality of contemporary gay ideology.
Indeed - the article proves his point. Here is someone who expierinces SSA & identifies as "gay" and also dosent accept the totality of contemporary gay ideology.
Like the racists of old and their "one drop rule" - overcame & the fellow in this article threaten your belief system and require you to respond in ways that bolster that system in light of the threat presented.
The homosexuals have great problems, and I don;t wish to unnecessarily add to them.
But coming after marriage?
That was a mistake.
So to condense your rant there, Fitz, if one is gay, is honest about it, and enters into naturally occuring romantic relationships with people who come into their life, they are "embracing the totality of contemporary gay ideology"?
Do you consider someone who stays in the closet and enters a relationship and builds a family with someone of the opposite sex to whom they are not physically, emotionally, or romantically attracted some sort of hero?
A true hero, 14th, who has contributed the foundation of civilization- a family where a mother and a father raise their children.
You just don't get it, but that's OK.
Your neighbors do.
It is good to see that there are some people that have self control and can reject urges to go wild and engage in perverted and destructive acts.
Well, I think Mitt Romny just got a no nonsense spokesman for this issue. And the subject of politics woun't even have to come up.
14th
#1. If you consider my writing a "rant" then why would you be asking further questions about it. Warning: I will not continue to engage you in conversation if you resort to name calling and the like.
#2 "embracing the totality of contemporary gay ideology" - Is more than simply being a practicing homosexual, so the answer to your firstr querry is no.
#3 As to your second querry the answer is no... However there is nothing in this article or the relationship of Stephen Daldry's (that I link to..above) that suggests they are not "physically, emotionally, or romantically attracted" to their spouses.
It looks like many here arguing about whether or not he is really gay haven't read his article. (You should; it is really good.) It is great to see someone with his disposition realize that he is capable of choosing how to live his life, and making the best choices for himself and society.
As an aside, declaring something is a right over and over doesn't just make it so. I'm glad liberals like the 14th amendment, but it's not the only one. The supreme court HAS actually ruled limiting marriage in the past. Any marriage equality people interested in what the precedent is before it goes before the court?
Whyimconservative.wordpress.com
I disagree. All humans have the potential of feeling same-sex sexual attraction. Friendship itself allows for some hugging, and in some cultures even kissing as symbolic. Hollywood actors stopped touching in their kissing, though, when the AIDS epidemic began. Same-sex attraction is just a matter of environment. For instance, most of us do not think ourselves to be cannibals, and we are not cannibals unless we eat human flesh, but we have the potential to be a cannibal, and therefore ARE cannibals. Stuck in the middle of an ocean with nothing to eat except other people (dead or alive) often leads to those alive showing they can 'become' cannibals. The same thing goes with other foods we consider repugnant, like cockroaches in a POW camp, worms in the Alaskan tundra. But what is most revealing of these analogies is we also do not care to discuss it (because it is currently repugnant, and will always be). We are programmed to not think of ourselves as having Same-sex sexual attraction, but it is a matter of environment. 'Romantic' attraction is not sexual, it is friendship, and we must not confuse the two. Intimate matters are difficult to analyze, by definition. Laws of privacy do not allow scientific experiments, and so researchers must go with hearsay, verbal testimonies, etc. So, it is easy to arrive at incorrect 'research' conclusions on these matters, if one shows one's bias. Of course, we don't think ourselves as biased, yet most of the time, we are. All of us. IF same-sex sexual (not romantic) attraction is a human potential, not controlled by a gene, then same-sex civil marriage or civil unions need not be legislated. Even if controlled by a gene in some special cases, same-sex civil marriage or civil unions need not be legislated. Neither applies to the reasons government offers marriage licenses to opposite-sex couples. No one refutes this reasons.
these reasons, plural
Fitz: 'Aparently [sic] they find their wives attractive enough to be aroused and have sex....and if so.....then what does that say??'
They FIND their wives attractive? Why else would they have married?
What it SAYS is that there is such a sociological behavior pattern as the so-called 'bi-sexual', which in truth dispels any notion that 'homosexuals' or 'lesbians' stay that way and is immutable.
If science becomes politics, it ceases to be science. If science becomes a for-profit focus, it ceases to be science - it becomes just another form of business.
For those of you who insist that this man isn't gay, perhaps you should read the article very carefully one more time (maybe you haven't read it at all yet). He makes it crystal clear that his sexual attraction is and has always been towards men, instead of women. He believes, and rightly so, that this fact makes him gay. Despite this, he has chosen to marry a woman in order to be true to his religious values. To his credit, he goes on to say his decision is a personal one and others may make different ones.
Behavior is a choice and some people make the right choices and some people don't.
I don't see what's so hard to understand.
The man is afraid of having his skin burned off his bones in the oven the size of Texas that his loving Lord created for all "faggots" (as wells Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Mormons, Seventh-Day Adventists, liberal Episcopalians ... basically anyone who doesn't toe the orthodox line ... whatever that is.)
So, he has sex with a woman instead.
If he's fantasizing about a guy when he's having sex with his wife, that does NOT make him straight, though, and his wife would be a bit silly to consent to live in such an arrangement.
Whatever, though. It's their lives.
@Little man... I don't want to think about it
Bringing up the subject of homosexuality in any circumstance is above, and before all else, simply bring up the subject of sex for the sake of sex. (Which is a stimulant, or irritant etc.) That's one of the reasons that the marketplace and social scientists loves this “legitimatized” form of the subject; “homo-rights” so forth. They are given the authority to talk about it to everyone, at any time and anywhere. Even in kindergarten. Okay boys and girls, today after playing with your blocks and your toys, we're going to all going to sit together and talk about erotic sex.
“...we don't care to discuss it”, as you say, because often not discussing something is the most helpful, healthiest and wisest thing to do. In this case, playing kickball would be much more educational.
Rick, Evidently one man's hero is another man's closet case. May your daughter marry a hero.
@Fine James... if that's how you see things...
But his loving lord has given him three loving biological children, with their loving mother. Daily joy, peace and comfort. He is building his own kingdom. Where your ideas can only seem very small to him, childish.
Great point, 14th. I always wonder how many NOM supporters who think all gay people should follow this man's example would be that pleased if it were their sister or their daughter who had decided to marry a gay man.
Bruce asks: "I always wonder how many NOM supporters who think all gay people should follow this man's example would be that pleased if it were their sister or their daughter who had decided to marry a gay man."
I wouldn't mind if my sister or daughter married a guy who decided to give up acting on his same-sex attraction and was faithful to her. But, generally, you wouldn't know that the guy had ssa, because it would be irrelevant; the guy is not "gay" if he lives a straight lifestyle and never labels himself as "gay." He would be like any other straight guy.
Little Man
I agree with the general thrust of your reasoning. The "born that way" thesis has been roundly refuted. That is not to say that biology dosent have a component part.
And yes, you hear so little about bi-sexuality because it "problematizises" the narative of gay ideology.. Its never discussed, but seems and obvious point that many who identify as gay may really enjoy the capacity to form sexual relationships with the opposite sex.
This seems like an easy and indeed politically correct response to those who have been succesfull at reparative therapy. One could simply assert that many of those who thought they were gay were actually bi-sexual and realized through councelling that they could maximize and realize their heterosexual potential.
Im not saying this is my assesment ...Im just saying it fits the narrative yet you dont hear it as a feasible explanation of mutiple phenomina.
Good News:
Bravo.
Good News:
Bravo.
Bruce, 14th:
Had I a daughter I can only hope she would be as happy as the wife of our hero.
Overcame:
'...the guy is not "gay" if he lives a straight lifestyle and never labels himself as "gay."'
But he DOES label himself gay. Read the headline of this story.
Bruce says:
Great point, 14th. I always wonder how many NOM supporters who think all gay people should follow this man's example would be that pleased if it were their sister or their daughter who had decided to marry a gay man.
Finally a first here. Me and Bruce actually agree!!!! If a gay man pledged to be faithfull to my sister and wanted to marry her I would support him. Marriage is a union of one man and one woman no matter what your sexual orientation is.
If it was my daughter he then becomes my son in law and I give my daughter away to him. If his SSA interferes with sex then him and my daughter could always adopt a child and give them the mother and father they need. Now I am a grandparent. The wonderfull story above shows that they would make fine parents. Imagine the unconditional love for their children. Putting selfish and lustfull sexual desires aside so that their children can have a mom and dad. Now that is what I call parental love folks.
http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html
I think it is important to read the whole blog before commenting on it. He states that he came out to his wife before they were ever married. She made a conscious decision to marry him. His point is not to say how anyone should act, just that he is acting in this way. He also very clearly explains how he is able to be intimate with his wife. He has never had a sexual experience with a man. The overall message of the blog is "love". His parents loved and accepted him, his wife has loved and accepted him, and his family has loved and accepted him. This love has enabled him to make his own decisions and not get caught up in the emotions of fear. He shared because he encourages everyone to love others and not judge their decisions. Anyway, after reading most of the comments these were a few points that seemed to be missed.
If the woman is fully aware before going into the marriage then, best of luck to the happy couple.
Not something I could ever do.
How many of these kind of marriages are actually as open and honest as this one?
I would not wish on my daughter or sons a sexless counterfeit marriage.
@John Noe
John, with all due respect, do you actually *know* any gay people? When you say you support a marriage between your daughter and a person who is incapable of physical or romantic attraction to her, what you're supporting is something destructive for both people involved as the story above illustrates for anyone who has eyes to see. Situations like these are ticking time bombs for both parties -- not to mention any children of the marriage.
Anyone who takes the model of this guy as typical or workable for the average gay person is really really out of touch with reality.
In fact, maybe before pontificating about this, you should ask your gay friends, neighbors and relatives what they think about this sort of arrangement ... that is if you have any gay friends, neighbors and relatives (that are willing to come out to you.)
Because my eyes suffer from a lack of coloration other than brown (LCOTB), I "identify" as brown-eyed. I could go out and buy blue contacts but I would still "identify" as brown-eyed.
If you haven't yet read Josh and Lolly's entire post, I recommend you hit the link immediately. They both sound like totally awesome people. Josh couldn't reconcile his sexuality with his faith so he chose what was most important to him. I wish only the best for Josh, Lolly and their three beautiful daughters (who will no doubt grow up to be as faithful and honest as their super rad parents).
Fascinating. But this will never get attention by the left because it would potentially destroy their arguments.
The subject of the article is already in a loving, committed, and sexually exclusive relationship. Isn’t “loving and committed” the warm phrase we hear all the time? This is “misguided” only if your guiding principle is that sexual appetites and future temptations should always prevail over existing marital commitments. In marriage committed either means committed despite current of future sexual temptation or it means very little.
@Matt
So Matt, isn't it destructive that a man looks at another woman even though he's married? One would say "yes" but I would counter that he isn't acting on those urges because he wants to honor his vows and remain loyal. Isn't destructive for a man that fantasizes about other women but remains married to his wife and not engage in infidelity? What's the difference? Because this man happens to fantasize about other men?
You seem to be basing love on sexual attraction here instead of commitment and loyalty. His wife is aware of his sexuality but she's still married to him(10 years) and they are raising three children. No matter how you want to percieve it, that's REAL love.
How sad for them. Ten years is a good run, but these arrangements never turn out well. I hope they don't have kids. The inevitable Larry Craig or Ted Haggart incident could be very devastating to them.
edit: is it destructive that a man looks at another woman*
Is it destructive for a man to fantasize *
"But this will never get attention by the left because it would potentially destroy their arguments."
Zack, how could this possibly destroy arguments for equality? If anything, it provides proof that sexual orientation is not a choice. Gay men have been marrying women for centuries - his story is nothing new. AM made a good point - a gay person marrying someone of the opposite sex is a counterfeit marriage. I'll go further and say that two people of the same sex who are truly in love, fully compatible - physically, romantically, and emotionally, and are committed to each other for the long haul have a far more authentic marriage than any gay person who enters a heterosexual marriage because they're unable or unwilling to reconcile the doctrine of their chosen religion with their nature. And that's true whether or not they remain closeted.
This is such a ridiculous debate to even be having. To the straight guys: Could you have a loving, committed, fulfilling physical and emotional relationship in a marriage with a gay man? No, you couldn't. The important thing you're all conveniently overlooking is that being gay is not just physical and affectional attraction to one's own gender, it's the absence of such attraction to the opposite one. So unless you're willing to put your rhetoric in action to test this theory that you all seem to think is so rock solid by entering into a relationship with another man, you really need to retire this talking point and s.t.f.u.
Strangely enough, 14th, it is possible to know some things without having experienced them.
For example, we know from the interview at the top of this thread that a self-professedly "gay" man can, does, and has chosen to marry a woman, father children, and head a family.
There is just no amount of bomfoggery that is going to assist you in obfuscating that simple fact, which on its very own shatters a surprisingly large number of pseudo-marriage talking points.
@14
"how could this possibly destroy arguments for equality? If anything, it provides proof that sexual orientation is not a choice."
It proves it is a choice. He still has those same attractions but CHOOSES(key word) to be with. Tell me, is the marriage a lie if a straight man is checking out other women? Is it a lie if he fantasizes about other women but chooses to be faithful to his wife?
You want to try so hard to say that this man is living a lie. That what he's doing is destructive. Read the whole article, his wife has born him 3 daughters and they've been together for 10 years. Much longer than any "committed" same-sex couple that decided to tie the knot.
edit: be with this wife*
"It proves it is a choice. He still has those same attractions but CHOOSES(key word) to be with."
Zack, you've missed the whole point. He has chosen to enter into an opposite-sex marriage. He has NOT chosen his sexual orientation. He said "because I AM GAY". It's right there. Why are you having trouble grasping this? Is it because of you accept the truth that's staring you in the eyes, the foundation upon which your entire argument is built will disintegrate? Even those who have made a living off the "ex-gay" movement are beginning to admit that orientation is not changeable.
14th
I find myself in (uncomfortable) agreement with you on this particular issue of mixed orientation marriage.The reason is, most mixed orientation marriages are between unaware parties. Closeted gays and unsuspecting straights. Hardly a recipe for happiness for either person. That's what I meant by a counterfeit marriage.
However, that doesn't apply to this particular couple. Nothing is counterfeit about Josh and Lolly's marriage.They went into their marriage eyes wide open. They clearly love each other and have a wonderful family. Their devotion to each other, their children and their faith is praiseworthy. I wish them nothing but continued happiness.
@14
"Zack, you've missed the whole point. He has chosen to enter into an opposite-sex marriage."
So you admit he chooses to not live the gay lifestyle? You just contradicted yourself.
"Why are you having trouble grasping this? Is it because of you accept the truth that's staring you in the eyes, the foundation upon which your entire argument is built will disintegrate?"
My questions weren't rhetorical. And I'm not having trouble with anything. I understand full well that this man chooses to live a heterosexual life while still attracted to men.
"Even those who have made a living off the "ex-gay" movement are beginning to admit that orientation is not changeable."
I would love a source on that one. Because the research I'm finding say the complete opposite.
Just saying : )
Hi Zack. Oddly enough, I agree with you. His marriage is not "traditional" but that doesn't make it a lie or counterfeit. I am a little disturbed by the attacks on this guys marriage.
However, when you say "Much longer than any "committed" same-sex couple that decided to tie the knot." you come off prejudiced. It is wholly untrue that gay and lesbian couples cannot commit to marriage.
thanks for the clarification, AM =)
Zack, "I would love a source on that one"
a good start is Alan Chamber of Exodus
@Michael
I apologize if that last remark came off as "offensive" and I'll rephrase it to say "than most same-sex couples".
"It is wholly untrue that gay and lesbian couples cannot commit to marriage."
I suppose and I'll concede you that point however a statistic I've found says that these relationships don't last very long aren't very faithful.
@Michael
I am checking the site out, however it seems that this organization doesn't endorse nor does it condemn the practice. Most of what I have read came from the homepage regarding the legislation in California about the therapy ban.
"...a statistic I've found says that these relationships don't last very long aren't very faithful."
Marriage is a good way to promote lasting and faithful relationships
http://wthrockmorton.com/2012/01/09/alan-chambers-99-9-have-not-experienced-a-change-in-their-orientation/
However I am more inclined to take the position of the sources I discover as I find challenging what the social left deams "acceptable" makes for healthy debate.
@Michael
"Marriage is a good way to promote lasting and faithful relationships"
Not if two parties are of the same gender.
Here is the source I was referring to: https://same-sex.web.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf
Zack,
Don't go mucking up the waters of their fantasy with facts. Love is love; even if they have proved themselves incapable of recognizing the differences between biological truths and flights of fancy.
This shows that having sexual relations-- what some people call "being gay"-- is a choice and one can be happy with an attraction to it and not acting on it.
It's sorta like chocolate. Most people have attraction to it and most people can live without it. If something is more important than chocolate, you can do without.
This just makes NOM's point, that family values do trump sexuality.
This shows that having sexual relations-- what some people call "being gay"-- is a choice and one can be happy with an attraction to it and not acting on it.
It's sorta like chocolate. Most people have attraction to it and most people can live without it. If something is more important than chocolate, you can do without.
This just makes NOM's point, that family values do trump sexuality.
"Much longer than any "committed" same-sex couple that decided to tie the knot."
Zack, now you're just slinging crap. You don't really believe that there aren't gay couples who have been together for ten years, do you?
"So you admit he chooses to not live the gay lifestyle? You just contradicted yourself."
Zack, You're still confiusing sexual orientation with "lifestyle" a.k.a. choice of partner.
I know all too well why you do not want to acknowledge the hard truths of your romanticized notions; because you know that the second you do the fantasy will end.
Decadent:undergoing a process of decline or decay, especially in morals; showing uninhibitedly or immorally self-indulgent behavior
@Randy
"Don't go mucking up the waters of their fantasy with facts. Love is love; even if they have proved themselves incapable of recognizing the differences between biological truths and flights of fancy"
I forgot....sorry. I'll stop making sense.
@14
"Zack, now you're just slinging crap. You don't really believe that there aren't gay couples who have been together for ten years, do you?"
I figured I'd include the whole quote so people wouldn't assume I'm taking you out of context. Yes I'm fully aware of that, but if you have even bothered to take a look at the study I posted(I assume you haven't) you will find that most of those longstanding relationships dissolved just a couple of years after tieing the knot.
"Zack, You're still confiusing sexual orientation with "lifestyle" a.k.a. choice of partner."
10 years, 3 children and is still happily married and faithful to his wife. The man isn't a homosexual, so what if he's still attracted to men? That just means he hasn't embraced the lifestyle and rejects it in its entirety. It isn't any different than a straight man who slept around with other women, settled down with a woman and still oggles and fantasizes about women even after he's married.
good for him! every person gay or straight should have the freedom to do what they wish with the lives. some gay individuals may be able to establish a meaningful, affectionate relationship with someone of the opposite gender and should not be judged for doing so. I myself am choosing to be celibate because I am happier by myself.
now, I have been in love before. and I believe that gay couples should be able to get married for the same reason my mother and father did. once we get over these gender hang ups and recognize what love really is, this country and the world will become a better place
Same-sex couples is not a term that refers only to 'homosexual' or 'lesbian' couples. There is currently no legislation for "gay couple's" rights. That should be revealing. "Gay" marriage advocates actually advocate for same-sex civil marriage and civil unions, not 'gay marriage' (whatever that means). It always involves all partnerships which are of the same type of sex or gender. One might say, what about those rare cases in which someone had an operation to change their sex? Do they get a license to marry as opposite-sex partners? Of course, yes. State clerks don't really check (should we say) in-depth. My opinion: if someone wants a marriage license that bad, and can keep the secret, give it to them. On the other hand, if it happens frequently, the State clerk might start checking under people's clothes. Thanks a lot. As a result of terrorists we already have to sometimes undress at airport security stations. America will never be the same, said Osama. He also promised 'Change!'
Scott aRose: Have you even encountered pretty prejudice?
Amazing story. Amazing also lengths that gay activists or sympathisers will go to try to neutralise its effects - nice try guys, but your attempts only highight how high an impact this story has.
To 14th Amend (comment #5) who said: "It's interesting that NOM would choose to highlight a story that goes against their claims and proves that being gay is not a choice: "I want to point out that because I AM GAY (my emphasis), any lifestyle I choose is technically a “gay lifestyle."
The key difference is between having same-sex attraction, and acting on that desire by have sex with the same gender. Do you see the difference? The choice is whether to act on desires or not.
14th, I don't think NOM has ever claimed that being "gay" (as in having same-sex attraction) is a choice.
Perhaps you are confusing the words of some NOM supporters with the official positions of the organization.
Albert:
Your argument boils down to a proposal that marriage benefits be extended to every pairing (grouping?) of people who subjectively testify that they are in love.
A moment's reflection on the absurdity of such a conflation should serve to indicate why your arguments do not win elections.
@Albert
"once we get over these gender hang ups and recognize what love really is, this country and the world will become a better place"
The debate has never been about "love". The debate(atleast from my side) has always been about "what is marriage".
Gender matters.
It's funny to watch the NOMers change the meanings of the words gay, homosexual, "ssa", and sexual orientation to whatever fits the argument at the moment. We have people here saying "he's not gay" (despite the fact that he said he is) because the want the gay to refer to a "lifestyle" or political identity in the same day that Bill Donohue is tweeting that Jerry Sandusky (who is married to a woman and had children) should be referred to as "gay" because he abused young boys. Get your story straight folks.
14th -
Sandusky has sex with boys = "gay."
Man who marries a woman, has kids, and does not have sex with boys is "not gay" (even though he says he is).
Sounds consistent to me.
Beautiful post! What an inspiring story. It reminded me of an article about a Rabbi who arranges marriages between "gay" men and "lesbian" women, who want to have children, and want to raise them with their children's other parent in a manner consistent with their religious belief. You can read about it here:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2087274,00.html
Poster #44 said:
John, with all due respect, do you actually *know* any gay people? When you say you support a marriage between your daughter and a person who is incapable of physical or romantic attraction to her
Another person who did not bother to read the blog. He has shown physical and romantic love to her in the fact they have three children. He is a devoted husband to his wife and a provider for his children. He has proven that he is very capable of physical and romantic attraction to her.
@Overcame
Thank you.
Here is an Opine blogpost by F. Rottles on this subject:
F. Rottles on calling in-tact marriages a "sham"
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/03/f-rottles-on-calling-in-tact-marriages.html
Here is a snippet:
QUOTE
Contrary to the stereotype, most married men had already shared with their wives that they were attracted to other men. Of that group, most of the wives and girlfriends were accepting of the attractions. The issue on the table was not one of coming to terms with attractions, but rather of behavior. [...]
The group also [included] gay-identified men who were coming to terms with their attraction to women. ... this situation is more common than many people realize. Many of these gay men had positive relationships with the women in their lives, but the thought that sexual attraction could be part of those relationships was new for them. Some found themselves falling in love with a female friend, but struggling to come to terms with the stereotypes, misunderstandings, misogyny and ambivalence about bisexuality (and about women’s bodies and sexuality) present in gay male communities.
unQUOTE
14th Amend asserted that the husband in the article "has NOT chosen his sexual orientation."
But 14th cannot know this. It is astonishing how much the hardline SSMers will insist they know about other people's lives and marriages.
Sure, in many instances a person may not feel that same sex sexual attraction is a choice. But that hardly stands as good enough reason to believe that 14th Amend knows better someone else feels. And feeling that SSA is not a choice is not good enough reason to insist that SSA is never a choice.
14th is simply asserting the supremacy of gay identity politics, once again. The group owns the individual.
_ _ _ _
So-called mixed orientation marriages are a big target of SSMers.
See: Mixed Marriage
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/03/mixed-marriage.html
_ _ _ _
Also see:
Answering Ted Olson: Selective Immutability.
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/answering-ted-olson-selective.html
There was testimony during the anti-8 trial proceedings in which Olson's expert witness said that his own survey of openly homosexual persons revealed that a significant portion chose their sexual orientation. I wrote a bogpost on this testimony in "Extrapolating Choice". It appears that about 20% of the adult homosexual population are choosers, women more than men.
Olson also said that "gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual."
Assuming that he is using gay identity as proxy for same-sex sexual attraction, as is commonly done and as is strongly implied in his article, then Olson proposes that "the rest of us" -- i.e. the nongay population -- choose at the same rate -- 20%. Also, that the rate differs between men and women.
That there is any rate above 0% disproves the claim of immutability [...] That there are different rates based on sex also challenges Olson's assumptions. At the very least this casts scientific doubt. That his expert witness told of a significantly higher rate, in which 1 in 5 choose, serves to contradict Olson's assertion that science has taught that this trait is unchangeable.
Indeed, the extrapolation would mean that about 50 million adults in the country are choosers of something that Olson says is "to a large extent" unchosen.
_ _ _ _
And:
Extrapolating Choice [including comment section]
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2010/01/extrapolating-choice.html
So even if a sample of self-reported identification is used rather than self-reported behavior, choice appears to be a significant factor.
I don't think that we can safely assume that there is a clearly identifiable -- or even self-identifiable -- population of homosexual adults whose homosexual orientation has been and continues to be unchangeable.
The changeablity, and the choice factor, appears more common among women; more women than men reside in same-sex households (which is a more inclusive category than registered relationships). This pattern holds as well for licensed SSMs. Add to this the preliminary evidence that more individuals who register partnerships (SSMs, civil unions, domestic partnerships) have been previously married (to the other sex natch) than have never been married. Add also the evidence that most children, by far, living in same-sex households were attained via the old fashioned way -- previous procreative relationships (typically marriages or marriage-like cohabitations). It adds up. Choice is very significant. And choice of behavior stands out most of all.
[...]
The science on this is inconclusive, contrary to Olson's assertion. He chose his words carefully, to have it both ways, and science did not choose his words for him.
Meanwhile the marriage law has no sexual orientation criterion for ineligiblity nor for eligiblity. Olson has read that into the law but the law did not did not decide that for him.
Olson was saying that sexual orientation is unchosen, except when it is. And that the marriage amendment classifies by sexual orientation, except that it doesn't unles one squints and reads the invisible ink.
14th: You said "Even those who have made a living off the "ex-gay" movement are beginning to admit that orientation is not changeable." That simply isn't true. While change of sexual orientation may not be possible for everyone with SSA, it *IS* possible for some, and to say it "isn't possible"--period--is prejudiced and demeaning to those (like me) who HAVE experienced such change.
First of all, sexual orientation is not a simple "either/or" characteristic, like having brown eyes ("you either have brown eyes or you don't"):
1. The strength of sexual attraction is a continuum, not an "on or off" state (e.g. "You're either gay or straight--one or the other--and there's no in-between").
2. Same-gender attraction and opposite-gender attraction are NOT the inverse of each other (so that having more of one automatically means you have less of the other). In my own case, I have seen a much more dramatic increase in opposite-gender attraction (going from essentially zero to a rather strong erotic attraction toward women) than I have a reduction in same-gender attraction (going from an overwhelming to a moderate--and less frequent--erotic attraction toward men).
3. In addition to the question of the target gender and magnitude of attraction, there is also the question of the quality of attraction. I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me that there is not only a continuum of intensity, but a continuum of different qualities of attraction toward other people. I've personally experienced both very selfish kinds of erotic attraction (whose aim to dominate, control, or manipulate) as well as a kind of erotic attraction that flows out of a delight in being both known and loved.
So it is really a false dichotomy to pose the question of whether sexual orientation is changeable in stark, either/or language (as, for example, in a recent New York Times front-page headline with the phrase "gay 'cure'"). What does the word "cure" mean?? If it means that I never ever have another erotic thought directed toward a man for the rest of my life, then, no, I'm not cured (and probably not very many people with SSA are). But if it means that I've gone from virtually exclusive attraction toward men to a predominantly female-directed attraction, that I'm happily married to a woman (and, in fact, have never been happier in my life), yet still sometimes struggle against unwanted sexual desires (toward both men and women)--if this is what the word "cure" means--then I am cured, except for the fact that it's an ongoing journey, and I will not have "arrived" until the end of my earthly sojourn when I enter into eternity.
What I will be ten years from now, I do not know, but one thing I do know: there are many people who HAVE experienced a significant change in sexual orientation, and there are many others--like the Morman gentleman featured in this post--who have not, yet still choose to remain faithful and true to their beliefs.