Lgbt Advocates Burning Bridges To Ssa Community With Reaction To Tlc Show

[Ham Clam]

I'm an unimportant (in this issue) yet opinionated person so i thought I'd post my thoughts here:

The reaction of LGBT advocates to the new TLC show "My Husband is Not Gay" is burning bridges with the conservative SSA community.

Not that North Star and Affirmation don't fight like cats and dogs already, but this show is bring the tension to the forefront. 



How advocates are burning bridges:

1. Belittling the close relationships of those choosing the MOM path. Describing these as "sham marriages", the women as "stupid", and a multitude of other insults I've seen on social media the last few days is extremely hurtful to the couples and conservative community. It's bullying through shaming. 

2. Attempting to dominate over the conservative community. Trying to have TLC pull the plug on a TV about the lives of several of its members is straight-up censorship. The LGBT community is sending the message that they own the conversation and that the conservative community's voice and experiences don't matter.

 

3. Implying/saying that these couples are dangerous/an embarrassment. It's pretty obvious by talk the last few days that TLC is so powerful that the mere depiction of these couples will beguile the fragile youth. They will corrupted by the conservative position. Any depiction is only an advertisement after all. (The thousands of hours of pro-LGBT television be damned). And that the couples are an embarrassment to show to the world or are the "worse part of Mormonism". Stay in the closet, we don't want to see you. Wow, really?


This whole thing is sad and frustrating, even if I can tell these are just the extreme voices shouting loudly.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Ham Clam

[mormonnewb]

I'm an unimportant (in this issue) yet opinionated person so i thought I'd post my thoughts here:

The reaction of LGBT advocates to the new TLC show "My Husband is Not Gay" is burning bridges with the conservative SSA community.

Not that North Star and Affirmation don't fight like cats and dogs already, but this show is bring the tension to the forefront.

How advocates are burning bridges:

1. Belittling the close relationships of those choosing the MOM path. Describing these as "sham marriages", the women as "stupid", and a multitude of other insults I've seen on social media the last few days is extremely hurtful to the couples and conservative community. It's bullying through shaming.

2. Attempting to dominate over the conservative community. Trying to have TLC pull the plug on a TV about the lives of several of its members is straight-up censorship. The LGBT community is sending the message that they own the conversation and that the conservative community's voice and experiences don't matter.

3. Implying/saying that these couples are dangerous/an embarrassment. It's pretty obvious by talk the last few days that TLC is so powerful that the mere depiction of these couples will beguile the fragile youth. They will corrupted by the conservative position. Any depiction is only an advertisement after all. (The thousands of hours of pro-LGBT television be damned). And that the couples are an embarrassment to show to the world or are the "worse part of Mormonism". Stay in the closet, we don't want to see you. Wow, really?

This whole thing is sad and frustrating.

I agree that the rhetoric could be toned down, but I do understand the criticisms of the advocates for LBGTQ EQUALITY. As a black person, I would have some serious criticisms of someone who was to, say, use skin-lightening cosmetics so that they could live as a white person.

In fact, this was something that some blacks did in the early to mid-20th century and they were roundly criticized for "trying to pass." In doing so, they were ignoring the real problem -- the prejudice that made black skin a stigma in the first place. Also, they were leaving behind all those for whom no amount of make-up would be enough to pass for white.

I suspect that gay rights advocates feel much the same way about those who "pass" as straight. In doing so, they reinforce the prejudice that there is something wrong with being gay. Furthermore, they are leaving behind those gay people who are "too gay" to pass themselves off as straight.

That being said, I agree that there is no reason why this segment of the gay community should be silenced or ignored. In fact, this show only serves to highlight the fact that LBGTQ advocates don't just need to work for political change, but for religious reform as well.

[cinepro]

I can't imagine why a gay man (who feels no sexual attraction to women in general, and his wife in particular) would marry a heterosexual woman, and why a heterosexual woman would (knowingly) marry a gay man.

Maybe I need to watch the show.

[BCSpace]

I can't imagine why a gay man (who feels no sexual attraction to women in general, and his wife in particular) would marry a heterosexual woman, and why a heterosexual woman would (knowingly) marry a gay man.

 

I generally recommend against marrying someone out of pity or that you can change them etc., but I don't discount the possibility that two such diverse people could find each other and the one doing it out of true love for the other and the gay one doing it because they have faith that it is the way things are supposed to be.

[mormonnewb]

I can't imagine why a gay man (who feels no sexual attraction to women in general, and his wife in particular) would marry a heterosexual woman, and why a heterosexual woman would (knowingly) marry a gay man.

Maybe I need to watch the show.

It's the same thing as those who marry for money. In this case, the man and woman are marrying for the eternal equivalent -- admission into "good Heaven" (the Celestial Kingdom). And sure, the wife could wait around for someone who could give her both salvation AND love, but she is willing to settle for the salvation. Given the stakes, that trade-off seems reasonable (although I question the need for the trade-off in the first place).

And don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that this is a case of exploitation. No one is being "used" or "tricked." It seems that these couples have made a conscious decision to make some trade-offs to help one another reach their ultimate goal -- the CK.

Edited January 9, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm an unimportant (in this issue) yet opinionated person so i thought I'd post my thoughts here:

The reaction of LGBT advocates to the new TLC show "My Husband is Not Gay" is burning bridges with the conservative SSA community.

Not that North Star and Affirmation don't fight like cats and dogs already, but this show is bring the tension to the forefront. 

How advocates are burning bridges:

1. Belittling the close relationships of those choosing the MOM path. Describing these as "sham marriages", the women as "stupid", and a multitude of other insults I've seen on social media the last few days is extremely hurtful to the couples and conservative community. It's bullying through shaming. 

2. Attempting to dominate over the conservative community. Trying to have TLC pull the plug on a TV about the lives of several of its members is straight-up censorship. The LGBT community is sending the message that they own the conversation and that the conservative community's voice and experiences don't matter.

 

3. Implying/saying that these couples are dangerous/an embarrassment. It's pretty obvious by talk the last few days that TLC is so powerful that the mere depiction of these couples will beguile the fragile youth. They will corrupted by the conservative position. Any depiction is only an advertisement after all. (The thousands of hours of pro-LGBT television be damned). And that the couples are an embarrassment to show to the world or are the "worse part of Mormonism". Stay in the closet, we don't want to see you. Wow, really?

This whole thing is sad and frustrating, even if I can tell these are just the extreme voices shouting loudly.

The hypocrisy of many of the gay rights activists has never been more obvious than now.

[Traela]

It's entirely possible that a man who identifies as gay could still be attracted to, and in love with, ONE particular woman. Isn't sexuality supposed to be along a spectrum, instead of just binary? I can see how the gay rights crowd would be threatened. At all, their main message is that gay "marriage" is necessary because once someone realizes that they are attracted (at all) to members of the same sex, it is impossible for them to find happiness in heterosexual relationships.

[Ahab]

It's entirely possible that a man who identifies as gay could still be attracted to, and in love with, ONE particular woman. Isn't sexuality supposed to be along a spectrum, instead of just binary? I can see how the gay rights crowd would be threatened. At all, their main message is that gay "marriage" is necessary because once someone realizes that they are attracted (at all) to members of the same sex, it is impossible for them to find happiness in heterosexual relationships.

I identify myself as both gay and heterosexual, if you want to use those terms, because I often sense an attraction to people whether they are a man or a woman, and I have been pretty much snubbed by many in the LGBT community as not "one of their number" because I don't live the gay lifestyle, anymore. Even LGBT people are or can be snobs, don't cha know.

[california boy]

Who cares what choices these people have made.  It is their choice and not some political football that should be tossed about to see who wins some kind of game.  Hey if they can make their marriage work, then good for them.  It is certainly not any of my business what choices they made.  

 

Perhaps they are gay.  I was married to a woman for many years.  In the end, I couldn't live pretending I was straight.  Most gay/straight marriages end in divorce.  The church has since cautioned anyone entering into this kind of marriage.  People do a lot of irrational things in the name of religion. 

 

Or perhaps they are bisexual.  We don't live in their skin.

 

A 2002 survey in the United States by National Center for Health Statistics found that 1.8 percent of men ages 18–44 considered themselves bisexual.

[california boy]

I identify myself as both gay and heterosexual, if you want to use those terms, because I often sense an attraction to people whether they are a man or a woman, and I have been pretty much snubbed by many in the LGBT community as not "one of their number" because I don't live the gay lifestyle, anymore. Even LGBT people are or can be snobs, don't cha know.

I am so curious by what you mean by snubbed?  Do they not let you hang out with them?  Do they not let you march in their parades?  Do they turn their backs on you when you enter the room?  Love to know what you mean by that statement.

 

Most gays I know including myself have a wide range of friends.  I would say half of my friends are straight and half gay.  I don't choose my friends based on who they sleep with or who they are attracted to.  This is not like some club and you have to be voted in. 

[Ham Clam]

I agree that the rhetoric could be toned down, but I do understand the criticisms of the advocates for LBGTQ EQUALITY. As a black person, I would have some serious criticisms of someone who was to, say, use skin-lightening cosmetics so that they could live as a white person.

In fact, this was something that some blacks did in the early to mid-20th century and they were roundly criticized for "trying to pass." In doing so, they were ignoring the real problem -- the prejudice that made black skin a stigma in the first place. Also, they were leaving behind all those for whom no amount of make-up would be enough to pass for white.

I suspect that gay rights advocates feel much the same way about those who "pass" as straight. In doing so, they reinforce the prejudice that there is something wrong with being gay. Furthermore, they are leaving behind those gay people who are "too gay" to pass themselves off as straight.

That being said, I agree that there is no reason why this segment of the gay community should be silenced or ignored. In fact, this show only serves to highlight the fact that LBGTQ advocates don't just need to work for political change, but for religious reform as well.

I spent a little time in the North Star chat/e-mail group as an ally, and mostly everyone is in favor of equality initiatives (gay marriage, ect). It would be interesting to actually pole North Star about thoughts about gay marriage, ect. Many there are disillusion with therapy efforts, ect. so I'm not sure if that's as positively thought there as some people think it is. 

I can tell these reactions are a part of the heighten emotions going on. Not just coming from media outlets, but from the Mormon FB groups like Mormons Building Bridges, ect. I like going to these groups so that's why I'm so frustrated. Moderate voices will never be as loud as the critical ones. I was mainly hoping that this blow up wouldn't hurt the LGBT-SSA community relationships some people are trying to build (Circling the Wagons conferences, ect).

Edited January 9, 2015 by Ham Clam

[Avatar4321]

It's the same thing as those who marry for money. In this case, the man and woman are marrying for the eternal equivalent -- admission into "good Heaven" (the Celestial Kingdom). And sure, the wife could wait around for someone who could give her both salvation AND love, but she is willing to settle for the salvation. Given the stakes, that trade-off seems reasonable (although I question the need for the trade-off in the first place).

And don't get me wrong. I am NOT saying that this is a case of exploitation. No one is being "used" or "tricked." It seems that these couples have made a conscious decision to make some trade-offs to help one another reach their ultimate goal -- the CK.

why do you presume that it isn't love? You need to be attracted to someone to love them?

do you know what love is?

[mormonnewb]

why do you presume that it isn't love? You need to be attracted to someone to love them?

do you know what love is?

I should have been more clear ... Romantic Love.

[Calm]

I can't imagine why a gay man (who feels no sexual attraction to women in general, and his wife in particular) would marry a heterosexual woman, and why a heterosexual woman would (knowingly) marry a gay man.

Maybe I need to watch the show.

The few gay men I know who have married women and who claim to be happily married say they are physically attracted to their wife, even though they are not physically attracted to other women and are still physically attracted to men.  They have been able to develop that attraction for that one special woman because of the deep friendship and companionship they have with their wives to begin with.

 

I don't know if this is consistent with other gay men who have had successful heterosexual marriages, but just saying it is in the three or so relationship I know of (can't remember the exact number tonight, too tired).

[guerreiro9]

I should have been more clear ... Romantic Love.

So if your wife were to become disfigured in an accident so that she were no longer superficially beautiful, you could no longer share a "romantic love"?

[Yirgacheffe]

I'm an unimportant (in this issue) yet opinionated person so i thought I'd post my thoughts here:

The reaction of LGBT advocates to the new TLC show "My Husband is Not Gay" is burning bridges with the conservative SSA community.

Not that North Star and Affirmation don't fight like cats and dogs already, but this show is bring the tension to the forefront. 

How advocates are burning bridges:

1. Belittling the close relationships of those choosing the MOM path. Describing these as "sham marriages", the women as "stupid", and a multitude of other insults I've seen on social media the last few days is extremely hurtful to the couples and conservative community. It's bullying through shaming. 

2. Attempting to dominate over the conservative community. Trying to have TLC pull the plug on a TV about the lives of several of its members is straight-up censorship. The LGBT community is sending the message that they own the conversation and that the conservative community's voice and experiences don't matter.

 

3. Implying/saying that these couples are dangerous/an embarrassment. It's pretty obvious by talk the last few days that TLC is so powerful that the mere depiction of these couples will beguile the fragile youth. They will corrupted by the conservative position. Any depiction is only an advertisement after all. (The thousands of hours of pro-LGBT television be damned). And that the couples are an embarrassment to show to the world or are the "worse part of Mormonism". Stay in the closet, we don't want to see you. Wow, really?

This whole thing is sad and frustrating, even if I can tell these are just the extreme voices shouting loudly.

What's the MOM path?

[Avatar4321]

I should have been more clear ... Romantic Love.

that doesn't change a thing I just said. In fact I was assuming you meant romantic love.

its ridiculous to assume that you have to be attracted someone to have romantic love with them it certainly helps, I won't deny that. But it's not vital.

[bluebell]

Last week there was a blog on this show and the author (who i don't remember was gay or not) asked some of his gay friends about it.  I remember that one of his friends say rather disdainfully that he wasn't going to watch the show because it had nothing to do with his life.

 

My thought on his statement was to wonder how he would feel if there was a show on the struggles and choices of gay men and every heterosexual response was "that has nothing to do with me i'm not going to watch it"?

 

If he doesn't care about people who have lifestyle's he disagrees with, why should I care about him?

Edited January 9, 2015 by bluebell

[bluebell]

I can't imagine why a gay man (who feels no sexual attraction to women in general, and his wife in particular) would marry a heterosexual woman, and why a heterosexual woman would (knowingly) marry a gay man.

Maybe I need to watch the show.

 

These men claim to have sexual feelings for their wives and at least one wife has claimed that they have a satisfying sex life (and i suppose there's no reason we shouldn't take their word for it) so that is why these people have chosen what they have i suppose.

 

One blog i read (written by that homosexual church member who was an executive secretary in his ward somewhere in Oregon or California i think-i can't remember his name) claimed these men should more accurately be labeled bisexual.  For the record he was very upset with the premise of the show, claiming it would harm countless gay mormons.

[Avatar4321]

For clarification, by attraction in talking about physical attraction.

[Avatar4321]

These men claim to have sexual feelings for their wives and at least one wife has claimed that they have a satisfying sex life (and i suppose there's no reason we shouldn't take their word for it) so that is why these people have chosen what they have i suppose.

 

One blog i read (written by that homosexual church member who was an executive secretary in his ward somewhere in Oregon or California i think-i can't remember his name) claimed these men should more accurately be labeled bisexual.  For the record he was very upset with the premise of the show, claiming it would harm countless gay mormons.

as long as they are being honest, I don't see how it would be harmful. People need to know the truth.

[mormonnewb]

So if your wife were to become disfigured in an accident so that she were no longer superficially beautiful, you could no longer share a "romantic love"?

I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't find SOMETHING attractive about her. After 22 years of marriage, I find her sexier today than when she was at 21; and it's not because she's defied the laws of aging (and Ben & Jerry's). My view of what is sexy has changed to match her current looks.

But even if I weren't attracted to her, I would SETTLE for the loss of romantic love because we've built a life together.

Edited January 9, 2015 by mormonnewb

[Avatar4321]

Physical attraction and romance are not the same.

[guerreiro9]

I find it hard to believe that I wouldn't find SOMETHING attractive about her. After 22 years of marriage, I find her sexier today than when she was at 21; and it's not because she's defied the laws of aging (and Ben & Jerry's). My view of what is sexy has changed to match her current looks.

But even if I weren't attracted to her, I would SETTLE for the loss of romantic love because we've built a life together.

Would you also find someone who looks similar to your wife to be as attractive as your wife, or does your relationship with her affect her attractiveness in your eyes?

-guerreiro9

Edited January 9, 2015 by guerreiro9

[mormonnewb]

Would you also find someone who looks similar to your wife to be as attractive as your wife, or does your relationship with her affect her attractiveness in your eyes?

-guerreiro9

Both. I tend to take notice of women who are Mrs. Newbesque, even more so than a woman who might be more "conventionally" pretty. However, I am most attracted to Sister Newb. Edited January 9, 2015 by mormonnewb