Homosexuality And Opposite Sex Marriage

[rameumptom]

There was a time when marriages were all  arranged.  Often, the couple would not meet until their wedding day.  They made it work.

 

Today, we focus so much on the romance and sex, that we forget that marriage is much more than that.  It is a relationship based upon hard work, kindness and trust.  There are many successful marriages that do not have sex as a part (where one or both are paralyzed, for instance).

 

When we are focused inward on our own selfishness, there is no marriage that can last or fare well.  When we are focused on the other's happiness, then it can weather any storm, even if the marriage was arranged.

[busybee]

Most gays, especially outside the church never marry. Social pressure, religious beliefs and not wanting to disappoint family can be very strong motivators.  

Again, without getiing to graphic, and trying to see this from a male point of view, I just don't think I would be able to 'perform' with someone who was diametrically the opposite of who I was sexually attracted to.

IF I were gay, a heterosexual marriage would definitely be a sexless marriage in my case. Can't imagine having sex with someone I was not attracted to in that way.

[USU78]

I don't want to get too graphic, but I could not pretend for one minute to be homosexual if that was what was required biologically to make babies. I could never have children pretending to be homosexual.

and this, probably more than anything else, tell us all we need to know about the absolutist line drawing going on

[mfbukowski]

Most gays, especially outside the church never marry. Social pressure, religious beliefs and not wanting to disappoint family can be very strong motivators.

So social pressure is sexually arousing?

The question is how one makes a baby when the act is repugnant.

Edited June 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Again, without getiing to graphic, and trying to see this from a male point of view, I just don't think I would be able to 'perform' with someone who was diametrically the opposite of who I was sexually attracted to.

IF I were gay, a heterosexual marriage would definitely be a sexless marriage in my case. Can't imagine having sex with someone I was not attracted to in that way.

Agreed.

To me that implies that one has a choice.

We all have our temptations which we do not act on.

Edited June 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[CA Steve]

Agreed.

To me that implies that one has a choice.

We all have our temptations which we do not act on.

All temptations are not made equal.

I could also choose not to eat.

It is a whole lot easier for me to resist shoplifting than to avoid desert.

[strappinglad]

At the risk of getting this thread closed, prostitution ,at least for the men involved, exists because sex can easily be separated from love. As rameumptum said , marriage for most of history, was a contract that didn't necessarily involve romance.

[Tacenda]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/

 

A quote from the article: 

 

"The research may help to explain the underpinnings of anti-gay bullying and hate crimes, the researchers note. People in denial about their own sexual orientation, perhaps a denial fostered by authoritarian and homophobic parents, may feel a threat from other gay and lesbian individuals. Lashing out may ultimately be an indicator of the person's own internal conflict with sexual orientation."

 

Me:  I read this awhile back, and felt the need to post it again.  It is interesting to say the least.  I've heard many situations where the gay person left their heterosexual marriage, leaving children and their spouse in the wake.  They probably got married in the first place, because they feared the demise of living authentically.  In which case this isn't someone who is a cultural gay, more like a cultural heterosexual.  For those that blame it on society, I concede that some live a gay life style where they could be either gay or heterosexual, and go wherever they feel like.  But if you've never known a very young gay person, you might not understand that they aren't choosing but living with that orientation.   

Edited June 21, 2014 by Tacenda

[bcuzbcuz]

For me a successful marriage is where as time goes by, you get closer together, you  work towards the same goals. Differences are resolved in constructive ways, you develop a deep love (not just eros, but philia and agape as well) for each other that increases over time.  And you have good communication skills.

 

An unsuccessful marriage occurs when the couple does not grow closer together be end up living separate lives (whether divorced or just roommates).

 

obviously there are degrees of both.

Then I must say that I have had and have successful relationships with several male friends (myself being male). I am not married to any of my male friends, we do not share the same religion, we do not share the same household (although I shared the same apartment for three years), (we all share the same profession) but yet we get closer as time goes by, we work towards the same goals, we settle differences in constructive ways, we do not share any kind of sexual attraction, we're all married in long lasting heterosexual relationships. We're the best of buddies.

[Danzo]

Then I must say that I have had and have successful relationships with several male friends (myself being male). I am not married to any of my male friends, we do not share the same religion, we do not share the same household (although I shared the same apartment for three years), (we all share the same profession) but yet we get closer as time goes by, we work towards the same goals, we settle differences in constructive ways, we do not share any kind of sexual attraction, we're all married in long lasting heterosexual relationships. We're the best of buddies.

 

Congratulations on your successful relationship.

[USU78]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals/

A quote from the article:

"The research may help to explain the underpinnings of anti-gay bullying and hate crimes, the researchers note. People in denial about their own sexual orientation, perhaps a denial fostered by authoritarian and homophobic parents, may feel a threat from other gay and lesbian individuals. Lashing out may ultimately be an indicator of the person's own internal conflict with sexual orientation."

Me: I read this awhile back, and felt the need to post it again. It is interesting to say the least. I've heard many situations where the gay person left their heterosexual marriage, leaving children and their spouse in the wake. They probably got married in the first place, because they feared the demise of living authentically. In which case this isn't someone who is a cultural gay, more like a cultural heterosexual. For those that blame it on society, I concede that some live a gay life style where they could be either gay or heterosexual, and go wherever they feel like. But if you've never known a very young gay person, you might not understand that they aren't choosing but living with that orientation.

ridiculous and mean spirited are the words that best describe the above, which I have been reading about, on and off, since the late 1960s.

[mfbukowski]

All temptations are not made equal.

I could also choose not to eat.

It is a whole lot easier for me to resist shoplifting than to avoid desert.

That of course is not the issue.  I personally think that sexual temptations, no matter how strong, must be controlled. 

 

No sex before marriage, for example, and of course many of our wonderful sisters may not have the option to get married at all through no fault of their own.

 

Yet of course, virtually any sister could find a man who would be willing to get intimate with her, should she be sexually tempted to do so.

 

So I suppose that sisters who are tempted that way should go ahead because others allow themselves to have sex outside of marriage?

 

What about youth?  Should they have sex outside of marriage because it is "impossible" to control those temptations?

 

Of course one could go through a whole litany of sexual temptations which people control.   I honestly am trying to understand the difference, and why it is morally right to leave one's family because of sexual temptations and yet expect youth to control themselves with raging hormones.

 

Isn't the implication here that no one should have any sexual control because these are "really strong" temptations?  THAT is the central question as I see it.  I appreciate your being willing to discuss this highly sensitive issue, and of course if you want to stop doing so, that is totally understandable. 

 

But I am really trying to understand the argument here rationally.

[Tacenda]

ridiculous and mean spirited are the words that best describe the above, which I have been reading about, on and off, since the late 1960s.

How so?

[california boy]

I don't want to get too graphic, but I could not pretend for one minute to be homosexual if that was what was required biologically to make babies.  I could never have children pretending to be homosexual.

 

 

and this, probably more than anything else, tell us all we need to know about the absolutist line drawing going on

 

 

So social pressure is sexually arousing?

The question is how one makes a baby when the act is repugnant.

 

I think the point that seems to confusing everyone is you assume a gay person is marrying another gay person for the sex.  That is really not the case.  It is much more complexed than that, just as it is for any marriage.  Being in love with someone, wanting to share a life together, having common goals, feeling a deep emotional connection with who you are with.  It is what marriage is about for any couple.  We don't choose who we marry simply because we want to have sex with them.  I actually would put sex way down the list of what is important in a marriage.  Like many have pointed out, there are many marriages that thrive even when sex is not a part of that marriage.  But who you fall in love with is something that is paramount to marriage and staying in love with that person is the key, in my opinion to keeping a successful marriage.  Gays only fall in love with someone of the same sex.  Straights only fall in love with someone of the opposite sex.  Would you have married your spouse if you never fell in love with them?

 

Would you be willing to give up marrying the person you choose to marry just to be with someone of the same sex if that is what you were told to do?  Do you think marriage is just finding a person to have sex with?  Do gay members choose celibacy simply because they don't want to have sex with a woman or live in a marriage without sex?  If you think the only reason a gay person chooses to marry is because they want to have sex, you are so far off base.  Seriously, it is not hard to find someone to have sex with whether you are gay or straight.  You don't have to be married to have sex. If that was the only reason for marrying then why would anyone bother unless they really thought they would go to hell if they have sex outside of marriage.  

[california boy]

That of course is not the issue.  I personally think that sexual temptations, no matter how strong, must be controlled. 

 

No sex before marriage, for example, and of course many of our wonderful sisters may not have the option to get married at all through no fault of their own.

 

Yet of course, virtually any sister could find a man who would be willing to get intimate with her, should she be sexually tempted to do so.

 

So I suppose that sisters who are tempted that way should go ahead because others allow themselves to have sex outside of marriage?

 

What about youth?  Should they have sex outside of marriage because it is "impossible" to control those temptations?

 

Of course one could go through a whole litany of sexual temptations which people control.   I honestly am trying to understand the difference, and why it is morally right to leave one's family because of sexual temptations and yet expect youth to control themselves with raging hormones.

 

Isn't the implication here that no one should have any sexual control because these are "really strong" temptations?  THAT is the central question as I see it.  I appreciate your being willing to discuss this highly sensitive issue, and of course if you want to stop doing so, that is totally understandable. 

 

But I am really trying to understand the argument here rationally.

 

Because once again, it is not about sexual temptation.  A gay person can be friends with his wife, but usually can not fall in love with his wife.  Did you have the chance to fall in love and marry the person you were in love with?  Would you have gotten married if you were not in love, but simply wanted to have sex?  Because if that is the only reason you married, then you are probabaly pretty disappointed in life by now.  Few marriages meet the sexual expectation of both parties.  But a marriage without love is the toughest kind of marriage to live with.  When you love the person you are married to, all those annoying habits are overlooked or ignored.  When you are not in love, they are just dang irritating like fingernails to a chalk board.

 

Why do I feel like a marriage counselor for trying to explain how marriage works.  Do none of you really understand why you are married to the person you are with?  Or did you all ask the first person to come along that you could talk into marrying you so you could have sex with them without sinning.

[guerreiro9]

Did you have the chance to fall in love and marry the person you were in love with?

Nobody in the history of the World has "fallen" in love. Love does not happen accidentally, it takes effort and time. This is why many marriages fail. They are infatuated with the person to begin with and confuse that with love (thanks to Hollywood). As the infatuation begins to wane they think "hey maybe I didn't really love this person" not realizing that the lack of love is because the effort was not expended to develop it. Nobody ever marries someone they truly love (that comes later).

I doesn't matter who you are, if love was not developed in a marriage it is because one or both of the partners were unwilling to expend the effort needed to develop it.

-guerreiro9

[guerreiro9]

When you love the person you are married to, all those annoying habits are overlooked or ignored. When you are not in love, they are just dang irritating like fingernails to a chalk board.

Complete and utter dross. No matter how much you love someone at some point they will get on your nerves. At some point the honeymoon ends for everyone. The question is what do you do at that point? Do you abandon the marriage and look for that honeymoon feeling again, wash, rinse, and repeat. Or do you roll up your sleeves and say I'm going to do what ever it takes to make this marriage successful and develop a more deep and meaningful love in the process. If people only stayed together according to your criteria there would be about a 99% divorce rate.

-guerreiro9

Edited June 22, 2014 by guerreiro9

[Sky]

I am a homosexual man who is married to a woman.  We are almost three years into the marriage and we are still married.  For the sake of honesty and transparency, I also fully disclosed this to my wife before we got married, and we both choose this option anyway.  We knew it wouldn't be easy, and it hasn't been.  In fact, sometimes things can be really difficult for us.  I definitely don't believe this option is feasible for a lot of gay people, but there are some who have done this and it has worked out really well for them.  I certainly hope that things work out well for us!  One thing I can say is that we are best friends and that I didn't get married to hurt her or get a divorce.  

 

    

[Nate]

Whether same-sex attraction is mixed into the equation or not, every successful marriage needs a great amount of forgiveness, willingness to change and be changed, and strong desire to make it work.  Is same-sex attraction more of a deal-breaker for a successful LDS marriage than, say, a past drug addiction or a propensity toward physical abuse?  I think not.  Every marriage has barriers to overcome.  Those barriers are as varied as the people who decide to marry, and they can be overcome.

[mfbukowski]

Because once again, it is not about sexual temptation.  A gay person can be friends with his wife, but usually can not fall in love with his wife.  Did you have the chance to fall in love and marry the person you were in love with?  Would you have gotten married if you were not in love, but simply wanted to have sex?  Because if that is the only reason you married, then you are probabaly pretty disappointed in life by now.  Few marriages meet the sexual expectation of both parties.  But a marriage without love is the toughest kind of marriage to live with.  When you love the person you are married to, all those annoying habits are overlooked or ignored.  When you are not in love, they are just dang irritating like fingernails to a chalk board.

 

Why do I feel like a marriage counselor for trying to explain how marriage works.  Do none of you really understand why you are married to the person you are with?  Or did you all ask the first person to come along that you could talk into marrying you so you could have sex with them without sinning.

I love all kinds of people I am not sexually attracted to, including my parents and children, among others. And we often live with siblings etc, whom we also love and we forgive them for their quirks, so I am still having trouble seeing your point. If one can make a baby with someone, I presume some level of emotion is there. You keep ignoring that point.

And if you knew my history, that last paragraph is pretty hysterical. Suffice it to say that I survived the 1960's as a non member and joined the church at 31 years of age after life as a student radical.

Edited June 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

I agree completely with all of your comments.  I too love my parents, sibings and children.  But I don't love them the same way I love my partner.  Gay marriages are no different than straight marriages.  Both take a lot of hard work.  Both have a honeymoon period and then the work begains.  But through it all, you have to have a strong spiritual and emotional connection with the person you are married to.  This isn't some date or sharing the same household.  Marriage is far different from that. Can you put your finger on why you choose the person you married?  Do you know what keeps that marriage strong?  Could you possibly have that same kind of relationship with your parents or siblings?  If you can answer those questions, perhaps you will find the answer to why a gay or straight person wants so desperately to be with someone who he connects with in a totally different and unique way than anyone else in his life.  For a gay person, they usually don't connect with someone of the opposite sex in that way.  For a straight person, they usually don't connect with someone of the same sex in that way.  This isn't rocket science. but defining what makes that connection can be difficult.  It is something deeper within us that explains why we choose to marry rather than just have sex.

 

If you really think you could have the same relationship with someone of the same sex that you have with your spouse, then you have a valid point of view.  Most people can not.  Some obviously can.  Sky is someone that is trying to do that very thing.  I wish him well.  

Edited June 22, 2014 by california boy

[Tacenda]

I don't know how you maintain your patience California Boy. How anyone can say they don't understand that gays falling in love is the same as heterosexuals falling in love, or act like they don't understand it by saying how they love another of the same sex and hang out or enjoy their company without ever having a sexual relationship. And why can't you or others that are gay do that? Well duh!

[EllenMaksoud]

Can someone who is homosexual have a successful marriage with someone of the opposite sex?

 

It seems that one of the many reasons that people are advocating SSM is that they claim it is not possible to have a successful marriage and a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Is this true?

 

Can there be a successful (opposite sex) marriage if one or both parties experiences same sex attraction?

I personally know two couples where the husband is homosexual. One couple did not make it, but years later the wife says they could have made a go of it if she had been more understanding. I do not know if that is only wishful thinking. They had five children that grew up with out a father in the home. As to his making any of his children homosexual, that is bad fiction.

 

The second couple have six children and then he decides that he is homosexual.  I'm not feeling terribly sympathetic toward the couple. Wait, you have six children and then there is trouble? What! The chilren all less than 12 years old are wonderful, lovely, sweet children, one boy and five girls.  They are still married but the struggle is painfully obvious. I hope they can stay together and get along until the youngest, who is two, gets married.

 

I think it would have been less painful for the two dads to not have been taught to repress their feelings and to have not gotten married. Now there are eleven innocent victims. How can that be Christ like? No, after this I am not open to the church position. They need to drag themselves, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

[CA Steve]

That of course is not the issue.  I personally think that sexual temptations, no matter how strong, must be controlled. 

 

No sex before marriage, for example, and of course many of our wonderful sisters may not have the option to get married at all through no fault of their own.

 

Yet of course, virtually any sister could find a man who would be willing to get intimate with her, should she be sexually tempted to do so.

 

So I suppose that sisters who are tempted that way should go ahead because others allow themselves to have sex outside of marriage?

 

What about youth?  Should they have sex outside of marriage because it is "impossible" to control those temptations?

 

Of course one could go through a whole litany of sexual temptations which people control.   I honestly am trying to understand the difference, and why it is morally right to leave one's family because of sexual temptations and yet expect youth to control themselves with raging hormones.

 

Isn't the implication here that no one should have any sexual control because these are "really strong" temptations?  THAT is the central question as I see it.  I appreciate your being willing to discuss this highly sensitive issue, and of course if you want to stop doing so, that is totally understandable. 

 

But I am really trying to understand the argument here rationally.

I wonder why you think the fact I pointed out that there are different levels of temptations means everything you mentioned above?

 

The implication is that not all temptations are equal. Not all people face the same challenges. Not all people struggle with weight control,. Not all people are either gay or straight. Not all people have to deal with living in a society that tells them life long abstinence of their sexual drive is what God expects them to do, especially by people who don't face the same challenge. My wife struggles with her weight, I don't. So should I tell her that since I can maintain my weight she should be able to also? Should I mention that the Word of Wisdom says "all these to be used with prudence" & "nevertheless they are to be used sparingly"?

 

"Hey look, there are skinny people over there, what's your problem?"

 

I think the the level of temptation each person faces is an integral part of the issue. I am not advocating a level of temptation that cannot be controlled. I am saying that the comparisons you made paint the issue as black and white, which I do not think is correct.

 

I am not advocating leaving a family because of sexual temptations, however I can see cases where divorce (just like the same argument for excommunication by the way) can be a process that can actually help a family heal in the long run. I can also see cases where staying together merely for the children is a really bad idea. My in laws were a great example of this.

 

This thread asks if marriage between a gay person and a straight can be successful. Clearly such a relationship would start with a really big disadvantage but if two such people really wanted to get married why should they be any more or less able to control temptation than any other similar two people? The answer is they aren't. They are entering a marriage that will be very difficult, and as some of the statistics posted before indicate, has very little chance of success. 

 

We might also ask similar questions like: can a marriage between a devote Mormon and hardcore atheist be successful?

Or how about a marriage between an partner with a strong sex drive and one who is sexually impotent?

Sex does not equal all that marriage entails and not all temptations are created equal or affect people equally.

[rpn]

Can some?  That is different than can everyone, for sure.  Successful marriage between a heterosexual and a gay person requires sacrifice from both that some could not pull off in the long run, though with God's help and determination to do so, would be possible.