"my Husband's Not Gay".......an Interesting Comment

[Bernard Gui]

In response to a question about the TV series "My Husband's Not Gay," my friend Brad Anderson wrote the following.

He may join the discussion if anyone is interested. I post this with his permission:

 

Why have a program like "My Husband's Not Gay" I think it would benefit youth that are out there alone struggling with SSA. I worked for many years with the group of men that belong to the organization that these couples belong to. I felt great relief from anxiety that I was not alone and that there were others out there just like me - having SSA and wanting to live an LDS life. How different my life would be had I run into an organization such as these brethren belong to when I was a teenager. I think it is a healthy outlet for people dealing with SSA and people not understanding the struggles of a LDS with SSA. North Star International is the organization. It is not Church sponsored but works closely with Church leaders and is a great resource for Bishops and Stake Presidents. The Church has come a long way in dealing with individuals with SSA. There was a time when just expressing that you had the "feelings" could get you excommunicated from the Church. I've even sat with one of the Twelve and shared my feelings about the organization and the help that it had been to me. So to answer you question about "why" I think it is long overdue to allow this subject to come out of the closet. Not into the choice that the world offers but coming out of the closet through an appropriate door.

 

 

[juliann]

I don't follow all of this closely so I'm likely to say something wrong.... but I find it curious that LGBT advocates recognize a sexual spectrum rather than a binary division of gay vs straight. So I am genuinely curious why only this configuration along that spectrum isn't respected or supported. If they called themselves bisexual would that be more palatable?

[rockpond]

In response to a question about the TV series "My Husband's Not Gay," my friend Brad Anderson wrote the following.

He may join the discussion if anyone is interested. I post this with his permission:

It may help some youth not feel alone. That's a good thing. But I fear that this program will send the message to gay LDS youth that they should enter into a heterosexual marriage. That is counsel that the Church stopped giving sometime back likely because it has a high probability of producing disastrous results.

[Bernard Gui]

Rockpond....better to know going in to the marriage than finding out 20 years and 5 kids later.

I'm wondering where all this is going and what the Church will look like in 10 or 20 years.

 

In the words of the King of Siam, "Is a puzzlement."

 

When I was a boy, world was better spot

What was so was so, what was not was not
Now, I am a man, world have changed a lot
Some things nearly so, others nearly not

There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know
Very often find confusion
In conclusion, I concluded long ago

In my head are many facts
That, as a student, I have studied to procure
In my head are many facts
Of which I wish I was more certain, I was sure
Is a puzzlement

What to tell growing son?
What for instance, shall I say to him of women?
Shall I educate him on the ancient lines?
Shall I tell the boy as far as he is able
To respect his wives and love his concubines?

Shall I tell him everyone is like the other
And the better of the two is really neither?
If I tell him this I think he won't believe it
And I nearly think that I don't believe it either

When my father was a king
He was a king who knew exactly what he knew
And his brain was not a thing
Forever swinging to and fro and fro and to

Shall I, then be like my father
And be willfully unmovable and strong?
Or is it better to be right?
Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?

Shall I join with other nations in alliance?
If allies are weak, am I not best alone?
If allies are strong with power to protect me
Might they not protect me out of all I own?

Is a danger to be trusting one another
One will seldom want to do what other wishes
But unless someday somebody trust somebody
There'll be nothing left on earth excepting fishes

There are times I almost think
Nobody sure of what he absolutely know
Everybody find confusion
In conclusion, he concluded long ago

And it puzzle me to learn
That tho' a man may be in doubt of what he know
Very quickly he will fight
He'll fight to prove that what he does not know is so

Oh, sometimes I think that people going mad
Ah, sometimes I think that people not so bad
But not matter what I think, I must go on living life
As leader of my kingdom, I must go forth
Be father to my children and husband to each wife
Etcetera, etcetera and so forth

If my Lord in Heaven Buddha, show the way
Everyday I try to live another day
If my Lord in Heaven Buddha, show the way
Everyday I do my best for one more day

But is a puzzlement

 

Songwriters
Oscar Hammerstein Ii;Richard Rodgers

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

I don't follow all of this closely so I'm likely to say something wrong.... but I find it curious that LGBT advocates recognize a sexual spectrum rather than a binary division of gay vs straight. So I am genuinely curious why only this configuration along that spectrum isn't respected or supported. If they called themselves bisexual would that be more palatable?

 

This is a brave new world where it seems the rules are made up as you go. This is the 4th or 5th series that features Mormon

marriage. That's quite a number considering what a tiny minority the Church represents in the US and the world. Makes one wonder what the agenda is and who is setting it.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Bernard Gui

[Thinking]

This is the 4th or 5th series that features Mormon marriage. That's quite a number considering what a tiny minority the Church represents in the US and the world. Makes one wonder what the agenda is and who is setting it.

 

The agenda is to make money.

[tonie]

I don't follow all of this closely so I'm likely to say something wrong.... but I find it curious that LGBT advocates recognize a sexual spectrum rather than a binary division of gay vs straight. So I am genuinely curious why only this configuration along that spectrum isn't respected or supported. If they called themselves bisexual would that be more palatable?

 

I also do not understand why other groups are upset. One of the husbands, IIRC, stated he dated men prior to meeting his wife. So I think it would be safe to us "bisexual". I do not understand why get LGBT groups are upset that person has made a choice on how to express their sexuality.

[tonie]

This is a brave new world where it seems the rules are made up as you go. This is the 4th or 5th series that features Mormon

marriage. That's quite a number considering what a tiny minority the Church represents in the US and the world. Makes one wonder what the agenda is and who is setting it.

 

Are polygamists Mormon? Is living polygamy, one husband with two or more living spouses, "Mormon Marriage"?

[thesometimesaint]

Are polygamists Mormon? Is living polygamy, one husband with two or more living spouses, "Mormon Marriage"?

 

Non Sequitur.

 

Catholics believe that partaking of the Eucharist is literally eating the flesh of Christ. That doesn't make them cannibals. 

Edited January 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[tonie]

This is a brave new world where it seems the rules are made up as you go. This is the 4th or 5th series that features Mormon

marriage. That's quite a number considering what a tiny minority the Church represents in the US and the world. Makes one wonder what the agenda is and who is setting it.

 

Despite not believe that TLC has more than 1 show representing Mormon marriage..

 

 

Money is an agenda.

 

Another agenda, could be to demonstrate that "marriage" isn't as rote or dogmatic as traditional marriage advocates would like us to believe. 

Edited January 18, 2015 by tonie

[Calm]

I think tonie is asking where BG got his numbers for shows that feature "Mormon Marriages" (4 or 5).  The polygamist marriage show (shows?) would not, imo, fall into the "Mormon marriage" if we understand that as featuring LDS Church members.

 

At least that was how I read his comment.

Edited January 18, 2015 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

Human sexuality is fluid. If we are to define a sexual orientation spectrum a core requirement would be that the attraction is authentic, a judgement no one is qualified to make except the individual, and not a relationship established from religious obligation. Religion as motivation taints authenticity.

[CV75]

Human sexuality is fluid. If we are to define a sexual orientation spectrum a core requirement would be that the attraction is authentic, a judgement no one is qualified to make except the individual, and not a relationship established from religious obligation. Religion as motivation taints authenticity.

Human sexuality is certainly fluid. The hetero- / homo- / bi- / a-sexual nomenclature are as artificial as you can get, which sets the stage for political divisiveness and distraction from how the children of God are to behave. Divinely revealed religion on the other hand sets up covenants irrespective of any human capacity in any area of life and living, and teaches how the children of God are to behave given the guidance they receive to navigate the circumstances of their mortal probation. This is why revealed religion (as the head of the corner) becomes a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense that breaks and grinds any constructs that reject it.

[rpn]

In the multiple examples of failures of marriages because one partner is same gender attracted, I never read or heard that the person with ssa fully acknowledged their orientation and that both partners had fully explored and given informed consent to the opposite sex marriage.   Even when there was some knowledge, the person who felt that way sometimes went into marriage expecting that to fix the ssa, which, of course didn't happen.

 

In these new marriages we've been hearing about, in the last couple of years, when both parties have fully explored and been completely honest with each other and themselves and the options, I will not be at all surprised to see much different outcomes.   

 

The biggest problem for a straight spouse is in being lied to and having a partner that changed from what the straight spouse expected.  (And that is really no different from all the other kinds of changes that a partner can make that have equal possibility of undermining the marriage contract.)   So if the expectations from the beginning are different, then the fact that ssa will continue to exist, will likely be livable (assuming the actual relationship and each partner's mental health is good).

[Daniel2]

There are three articles I've come across that offer what I believe are the most insightful and thoughtful ruminations on this show.

I will post each of them, as I believe they provide some well great perspective.

BOXED IN ‘MY HUSBAND’S NOT GAY’ AND POP CULTURE’S SIMPLISTIC VIEW OF SEXUALITY

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/16/my-husband-s-not-gay-and-pop-culture-s-simplistic-view-of-sexuality.html

BY PARKER MOLLOY

01.16.15

On Sunday night, TLC aired My Husband’s Not Gay, a controversial look into the lives of four married Mormon men from the Salt Lake City, Utah, area. The common thread linking the show’s subjects is that despite being in committed, monogamous marriages with women, they each admit to having at least some attraction to other men.

Almost immediately after announcing the show’s air-date, TLC was hit with a deluge of complaints coming from outraged LGBT individuals and their allies.

Within days, nearly 100,000 people had signed on to a Change.org petition asking the network—which has in recent years distanced itself from its “The Learning Channel” roots in favor of shows about dance moms, pageant girls, failed Alaskan politicians, and laughably large families—to pull the plug on MHNG before it aired.

"As a devout Christian, I understand the important role faith plays in the lives of the show’s main characters,” says John Sanders, the petition’s creator. “It was made very clear to me by the conservative community I grew up in that being gay was considered ‘unnatural’ and ‘an abomination.’ So I, too, did everything possible to hide who I am. I was even subjected to six months of so-called ‘reparative therapy,’ a discredited and dangerous practice that falsely claims to turn gay people straight. I was promised I could change, and told that I should ‘pray the gay away.’”

“This show is downright irresponsible,” wrote GLAAD president and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis. “No one can change who they love, and, more importantly, no one should have to. By investing in this dangerous programming, TLC is putting countless young LGBT people in harm’s way.”

Sanders and Ellis both make extremely valid points. Reparative therapy is viewed by most medical professionals as being either ineffective or outright dangerous.

Just last month, transgender teenager Leelah Alcorn took her life, leaving behind a heartbreaking note detailing the painful experience she was made to endure at the hands of her parents and their decision to enroll her in one of these “therapeutic” programs.

Even with the justifiable concerns about people feeling the need to “hide” who they are in order to comply with their faith, and worry over the potential that the show would be used to promote reparative therapy, something struck me as odd about the statements aimed at TLC: they were built on the assumption that these men—who admit that they’re attracted to other men—are, in fact, gay.

Maybe they aren’t. Though it’s likely that at least one of these men is bisexual or otherwise outside of the gay/straight binary, that possibility was all but dismissed by the show’s critics, and in itself, is a form of bisexual erasure.

Upon airing, however, it became clear that none of the show’s subjects actually identified as such. When asked whether or not he identifies with the term “bisexual,” one of the men, named Curtis, replied, “I don’t necessarily.”

The men and their wives seem intent on doing whatever mental gymnastics are needed in order to convince themselves that being gay is a “lifestyle choice,” built around exhausted stereotypes and expectations of masculinity.

In one scene, the men suggest that playing basketball connects them to masculinity, and therefore, distances themselves from the “gay lifestyle.” Never mind the fact that it’s while playing basketball that the show’s stars ogle other men, insisting that they be “skins” in a “shirts versus skins” pick-up game; the irony is entirely lost on them.

A number of outlets have reported that several of the show’s subjects are in one way or another affiliated with Voices of Hope, a branch of the Mormon organization North Star International, a group tied to the “ex-gay” movement and it’s controversial “conversion therapy” tactics.

Additionally, a number of the couples have gone on record promoting “non-gay lifestyles” for other men who experience “same-sex attraction.”

The men of MHNG are perfectly within their rights to date and marry whoever they’d like. If that means being with a woman, that’s their prerogative. The way the show was formatted, however, was consistent with TLC’s recent formula for ratings success: take a group of people who are in some way “odd” or “outside the mainstream,” point a camera on them, and watch as a nation gawks at the weirdos.

It’s win-win; the network churns up controversy and ratings, and more progressive viewers are able to pat themselves on the back for being so much more open-minded than the subjects, while those who politically align with the subjects can rally around the opinions shown.

Programs like MHNG highlight society’s frequently-narrow interpretation of sexuality. When asked whether they think gay or lesbian relations between consenting adults should be legal, 31 percent of respondents of a May 2013 Gallup poll answered “no.”

This number is improved over the poll high in 1986, when 57 percent of respondents affirmed their beliefs that same-sex relationships should be outlawed, but it remains a startlingly high number. Unsurprisingly, those in favor of banning same-sex relations are also of the mindset that one’s sexuality is a choice or is impacted by how one was raised.

More socially liberal members of society will scoff at the idea that sexuality is so simple that it can be defined as “men are attracted to women, and women are attracted to men.” Even so, many of these same individuals will find it hard to extend their beliefs in sexual complexity beyond simply accepting that some people are gay.

In truth, whether or not you take the hard-line anti-gay stance that all people are straight, or take the stance that both gay and straight people exist, both views oversimplify sexual orientation and one’s sexuality.

Even in shows that are frequently championed as being LGBT-friendly, we see just how limited our view of sexuality is. In Glee’s season two episode “Blame it on the Alcohol,” Blaine (Darren Criss) tells Kurt (Chris Colfer) that he thinks he might be bisexual after kissing Rachel (Lea Michele) at a party, and that he’s agreed to go on a date with her.

“Acknowledging bisexuality messes with society's ideas of binaries. All of a sudden it's not as neat as we like it to be.”

Kurt is taken aback, and Blaine says, “When we kissed, it felt good…I’ve never even had a boyfriend before. Isn’t this the time you’re supposed to figure stuff out? Maybe I’m bi. I don’t know.” Kurt responds by dismissing the very idea that Blaine’s sexuality is anything other than 100 percent gay, saying, “Bisexual’s a term that gay guys in high school use when they want to hold hands with girls and feel like a normal person for a change.”

Kurt’s dismissive attitude towards the thought that Blaine might be bisexual is all-too-common in both media and society as a whole. Kurt argues that Blaine is obviously gay, and Rachel responds by suggesting that maybe he’s straight.

In the end, Rachel again kisses Blaine, he doesn’t like it, and concludes that yes, he must be gay (again, as though those were the only two options available). When asked why he chose to make Blaine a gay character rather than bisexual, show creator Ryan Murphy reportedly said, “The kids need to know he’s one of them,” which again, plays into this limited, dimorphic worldview surrounding sexuality.

Discussing bisexuality and bisexual erasure, Eliel Cruz, a writer who has written extensively on the topics of religion and sexuality, told me, “Acknowledging bisexuality messes with society’s ideas of binaries. All of a sudden it’s not as neat as we like it to be. It’s not black or white. That’s why the trans community has had hardships being recognized. Bisexuality breaks down heteronormativity more so than homosexuality because of the lack of binaries.”

There are a great many misconceptions about bisexuals; one of the most common being that bi-identifying people are “really” straight or “really” gay. Additional fallacies include beliefs that bi individuals are actually just indecisive, or that they can’t be in committed monogamous relationships—more frustratingly, when people bi people in hetero couplings as “straight” and vice versa.

None of this is true. These views stem from a monosexual-normative culture, in which those who don’t conform to the single-gender attraction standards set in the gay/straight binary are rationalized out of existence.

Furthermore, if someone can’t fathom the existence of bisexual individuals, they’re extremely unlikely to be able to accept the existence of sexualities beyond that.

While general-population studies of sexuality are often skewed or criticized as under-representing the true number of LGB-identifying members of society, a survey specific to transgender individuals and their own relationship with their sexualities is one of the more notable examples of just how diverse sexual orientations and identities can be.

According to the 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey, more than three-quarters of trans people identify themselves as something other than straight. Straight trans people—defined in this study as trans women who are exclusively attracted to men, and trans men who are exclusively attracted to women—made up just 23 percent of respondents.

Roughly a quarter of those surveyed defined their sexuality as gay, lesbian, or same-gender; another quarter identified as bisexual, 23 percent responded “queer,” and four percent as asexual. These identities extend beyond merely straight, gay, or bi, because sexuality is simply too complex to be limited to just a few terms.

Maybe it’s that trans people tend to be more forthcoming with the especially nuanced nature of sexuality as a result of already finding themselves in defiance of identity expectations. Or maybe it’s that trans individuals often undergo an extremely introspective look at their existence and identity in discovering who they are in terms of gender, leading them to naturally examine their sexuality.

Either way, the survey is proof-positive that like gender, itself, sexual orientation is an infinite, unique spectrum borne of self-discovery.

TLC’s hour-long special ends just as it started. None of the men had any sort of revelation. None of them have cast off their “same-sex attraction.” They’re still men in inexplicably monogamous, heterosexual relationships; this despite the fact that by the end, viewers are left asking, “Why would they do this to themselves?” At this time, TLC hasn’t made any indication that they plan to make MHNG into a full series, but who knows? The network typically trots out new show ideas first as “specials,” and then develops them into complete series should demand call for it.

If this is the TV end for My Husband’s Not Gay, the world will be a slightly less cringe-worthy place. If it continues, perhaps showing us the seedy goings on of Voices of Hope, it’s possible that what began as an unsettling look at men in sexual denial will transform into something far more insidious and misleadingly persuasive.

But before we harangue the show’s stars, the Mormon church, TLC, or anyone else, we must first acknowledge how our own views have been shaped by the world around us. Are we really so far removed from the “narrow” views we criticize?

Edited January 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

The second article is actually alluded to in the article above--it reports on the professional activism of at least one of the couples featured in the show:

TLC's "My Husband's Not Gay" Stars A Prominent "Ex-Gay" Activist

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/08/tlcs-my-husbands-not-gay-stars-a-prominent-ex-g/202062

January 8, 2015 4:16 PM EST

CARLOS MAZA

TLC denies claims that its newest show, "My Husband's Not Gay," helps promote the discredited notion that gay men can choose to be heterosexual. But one of the show's stars has a history of promoting "ex-gay" therapy, even acting as a spokesman for a major "ex-gay" organization.

TLC's new show, which follows a group of men who admit to being attracted to other men but have chosen to date and marry women, has been widely criticized by members of the LGBT community for promoting the widely discredited practice of "ex-gay" or "reparative" therapy.

GLAAD has condemned the program, calling it "downright irresponsible" and warning that it puts "countless young LGBT people in harm's way." Truth Wins Out, a group dedicated to stopping "ex-gay" therapy, has pointed out that many of the shows stars are closely affiliated with North Star, a fringe Mormon "ex-gay" group. So far, a Change.org petition calling for the show's cancellation has gathered nearly 100,000 signatures.

TLC has thus far shrugged off the criticism. "TLC has long shared compelling stories about real people and different ways of life, without judgment," the network said in a statement. "The individuals featured in this one-hour special reveal the decisions they have made, and speak only for themselves."

But one of the stars of TLC's show - Preston "Pret" Dahlgren - has a history of speaking on behalf of "ex-gay" ministries, repeatedly using his testimony to promote organizations that promote reparative therapy.

Dahlgren is the former chairman of Evergreen International, a Salt Lake City-based ex-gay organization which catered to the Mormon community. The group promised to help people "diminish... same-gender attractions and overcome homosexual behavior," largely relying on the work of the notorious National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). At a 2012 Evergreen Conference Fireside, Dahlgren gave a speech defending efforts to help people overcome same-sex attraction, stating that "same-sex attractions are almost invariably rooted in deeper issues":

[sEE LINK FOR THE VIDEO]

Dahlgren made similar comments in a video for the 2013 Reconciling Faith & Feelings Conference, an event that promotes "ex-gay" therapy and believes that it's possible to diminish a person's same-sex attractions:

[sEE LINK FOR THE VIDEO]

When Evergreen International shut down at the beginning of 2014, Dahlgren joined the board of North Star International. In a video for North Star's "Voice(s) of Hope" project - which seeks to promote "positive and healthy alternative responses to same-sex sexuality" - Dahlgren told his struggle with dealing with his attraction to men:

[sEE LINK FOR THE VIDEO]

Another star of TLC's show, Jeff Bennion, is a spokesman for North Star and has written in defense of "sexual orientation change efforts" (SOCE).

Dahlgren's wife, Megan, is also actively involvedin promoting "ex-gay" therapy, having worked with Evergreen, North Star, and People Can Change, another organization that promotes "ex-gay" therapy.

TLC's "My Husband's Not Gay" won't air its first episode until January 11, but it's worth noting that at least one of its stars has a real professional incentive to use his new, national platform to promote a kind of "treatment" that all major professional medical organizations agree is ineffective and can do serious harm to LGBT people.

My view: Dahlgren's professional activism does not mean he should not be heard, nor his views and experiences automatically dismissed.

It is, however, something that is worth noting, shedding further light on who he is and where he is on his journey.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

The third article is published in Psychology Today by one of my favorite gay therapists, Joe Kort. I have followed Dr. Kort's advice (online, through his blog, on Facebook, and in several of his books) ever since coming out myself and leaving my own failed mixed orientation marriage.

As a gay man, Dr. Kort is unsurprisingly very pro-gay, and offers realistic, practical, no holds barred, and very grounded counsel to gay men and how they can improve their lives, sexuality, and have healthy relationships.

Here's his take--which I wholly agree with and support:

Straight Women and Their Gay Husbands

http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201501/straight-women-and-their-gay-husbands

By Joe Kort, Ph.D.

January 13, 2015 - 10:00pm

“My Husband’s Not Gay,” a show on TLC, has caused an uproar. The negative attention is unfortunate because this could have been a show that highlighted mixed-orientation couples and how these couples can actually make their relationships work.

Why do some people become so outspoken and judgmental about marriages with one straight and one gay spouse? There are several reasons. These marriages raise concerns about infidelity. They bring out people’s judgments about what marriage should or should not be. In particular, they bring out people’s judgments about monogamy.

Finally, these relationships suggest to some people “reparative therapy,” the unethical and impossible claim that a person can be changed from gay to straight. The men in this television program aren’t claiming to be ex-gay nor that they can change their sexual orientation (at least not on the show). They report they are attracted to men but choose not to live as a gay man and their straight wives accept this.

People seem to get up in arms when a man says he is not gay but rather simply attracted to men. In our culture, we identify ourselves via a sexual-attraction binary: gay or straight. This is severely limiting.

I have supported some mixed-orientation couples who chose to stay together and others who chose to split up. No one has a right to tell two people that they should divorce. After all, it’s their marriage, and a loving partner is worth fighting for, even against conventional “wisdom" and social pressure.

In some of these marriages the men have told their wives from the beginning. Others have disclosed during the marriage. Before we villainize the men, let’s remember that society doesn’t allow children to explore anything other than heterosexuality. Consequently, these non-heterosexual children grow into sexually confused adults. They even tell themselves they are straight convinced that their sexual interests are just that—sexual. They don’t even consider that it is part of their real identity. Later their gay sexual identities surface and here they are—heterosexually married with children. They love their wives and they love their children.

Many straight women married to gay men consciously choose to do so with their eyes wide open. There are plenty of wives who choose to stay married even after finding out later in the marriage that their husband is gay and attracted to men. They make this choice with open discussions, which are very painful and emotional for both the gay man and the straight wife.

I tell my clients to forget about everyone else’s definition of the “institution of marriage” and think about what they want. It’s not about the strict definition of “marriage.” It’s about the people in the marriage. I say, “Get rid of your rigid definitions and develop your own ideas about what you want your own marriage to look like.”

I tell these couples to talk together and consider everything about their relationship. To the woman, I say, “Consider that you might have every reason to love and trust this man, that you can believe him if he says he wants to work to keep you and your family.” To the man, I say, “Consider whether you can really keep your homosexual feelings and desires in check. You might be able to claim your identity by meeting occasionally with gay men, staying in touch on Facebook, and letting your gay friends know that you want to remain sexually faithful to your wife.”

I warn mixed-orientation couples that he may feel differently later in life and his gayness may surface more strongly and become more of an identity for him and thus become an issue in their marriage. I warn them also that she may want more from a marriage than he can offer over time as well.

Both the gay man and the straight spouse share the risk of staying married. At least the couples with whom I work are doing so with open communication and honesty. It isn’t easy. Marriage itself isn’t easy. Most marriages could take lessens from the work these mixed-orientation marriages do to maintain intimacy and connection.

Generally, I counsel mixed-orientation couples who decide to stay married that they will have to keep their marital “secret" from everyone but a few selected people. They cannot be “out” socially, at work, or at school without judgments from others. Mixed-orientation marriages are as taboo today as black-white miscegenation was 50 years ago. Both straight and gay communities put enormous pressure on the man and woman in a mixed-orientation marriage, and few marriages can stand up under this social, family, and religious pressure.

This has never been more apparent than by the responses to the TLC show.

Some couples try to “live straight” and imagine that they will be able to not acknowledge the husband’s gayness in any way. Generally, a gay man will feel a lot of emotional distress, grief, and depression if he is living so deeply in the closet. This will happen even if, or maybe I should say especially if, he is in denial about his gayness.

Here are some points I especially make to the wives in mixed-orientation marriages:

1. If your husband says he didn’t know he was gay when he married you, he most likely didn’t know. Most of my male clients who are gay and married to women didn’t know that their identity was gay when they married. They often don’t know their identity is gay when they first come to see me. He most likely interpreted his gay interests as sexual “kinks,” and he convinced himself they would fade away after he married. Typically these men are homophobic and want me to reassure them and their wives that they aren’t gay. I’ve heard more than once, “I’m not gay. I just like to have sex with men.” These gay men identify their behavior as “only sexual.” They are in denial about its deeper meaning for themselves.

2. If your husband says he loves you, he truly does. A gay man can truly love a woman, have satisfying and regular sex with her, and want to stay married to her while being uninterested in other women sexually. Thus, love can conquer (but not change) orientation. That is, the man is still gay, and he loves you.

3. Most couples don’t talk about sex and their expectations for each other in a marriage, but you can do it. The ideal here is for the two partners to learn to talk honestly with each other about their sexual needs, and other needs, and what to do about them. She may fear that because he is gay, he will leave her. He may fear that if he admits he is gay, she will leave him. An agreement not to bolt may be very helpful.

The big question is: How can a gay man affirm his identity with other gay men and at the same time remain true to his wife? Will the couple decide that he must remain traditionally faithful; or will they have a more open marriage, and if so, under what mutually agreed-upon rules? The couple must talk openly and negotiate honestly. What exactly does he need? What does she need? Staying together could still offer many benefits for them both if they can find common ground. I think that honesty and transparency are the only absolute requirements. Whatever he does, he should have his wife’s informed consent.

The easiest option is to break up. Then everyone can stay in a category, and nobody is made uncomfortable because the rules of social prejudice are being challenged.

Maintaining a mixed-orientation marriage requires enduring the stress of keeping the secrets that one of them is gay and being discreet how they live their lives. The individuals in the couple need to have their eyes open about that. The more liberal the community they live in, the better, but even the most liberal community may be bigoted about mixed-orientation couples. The couple may need to be in therapy to deal with the stress.

Despite the difficulties, I still counsel couples who consider staying together if this is what they want, to preserve the love that brought them together in the first place. It takes a lot of work, but they can do it. They don’t have to live their lives so that the people around them are comfortable. Let others be uncomfortable. It may do them good.

As a father myself, the main concern I have with the potential message of this show (which unfortunately isn't discussed in the article) is the potential harm to the children in these types of marriages... Divorce is incredibly damaging on kids, and the divorce rate in this type of marriage is so incredibly high.

However, it is not my place to tell these couples and potential parents they cannot choose how to form their families, regardless of the statistics stacked against their relarionships. I may voice my concern, but their autonomy is theirs to exercise, as my autonomy is mine.

The loudest voices being reported by the media on this program are those on the fringe of both sides of this issue.

Hopefully it is apparent that the majority of opinions--and the level of respect for self-determination by consenting adults to live our lives as we each see fit--can be found in the spectrum between the polarizing extremes.

Do no harm, treat others as you wish to be treated, be kind and respectful, help aleviate pain and leave the world a better, more beautiful place, and remember everyone owns their own voice.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Daniel2

[Damien the Leper]

Human sexuality is certainly fluid. The hetero- / homo- / bi- / a-sexual nomenclature are as artificial as you can get, which sets the stage for political divisiveness and distraction from how the children of God are to behave. Divinely revealed religion on the other hand sets up covenants irrespective of any human capacity in any area of life and living, and teaches how the children of God are to behave given the guidance they receive to navigate the circumstances of their mortal probation. This is why revealed religion (as the head of the corner) becomes a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense that breaks and grinds any constructs that reject it.

I disagree. Religion is not the arbiter of morality. Human consciousness and conscience is. If the fear of God's wrath or fear of hell based on scripture is the motivation to be moral then a person is not truly moral at all.

[The Nehor]

I disagree. Religion is not the arbiter of morality. Human consciousness and conscience is. If the fear of God's wrath or fear of hell based on scripture is the motivation to be moral then a person is not truly moral at all.

Yes, we are all tired of hearing how great atheists are for not pushing old ladies down the stairs even though there is no hell. We are all impressed.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes, we are all tired of hearing how great atheists are for not pushing old ladies down the stairs even though there is no hell. We are all impressed.

Oh, Nehor. Nice non-response.

[The Nehor]

Oh, Nehor. Nice non-response.

 

I was trying to match the level of intelligent content in the post I was responding to. I actually think I overshot. I apologize.

[Damien the Leper]

I was trying to match the level of intelligent content in the post I was responding to. I actually think I overshot. I apologize.

You didn't come close to over shooting. I expressed a logical point on morality. Are you moral because you are told to be so according to scripture or are inherently able to discern right from wrong through human experience? The argument from authority continues to (attempt to) pervert rationality and reason. This is ethics 101.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Valentinus

[The Nehor]

You didn't come close to over shooting. I expressed a logical point on morality. Are you moral because you are told to be so according to scripture or are inherently able to discern right from wrong through human experience? The argument from authority continues to (attempt to) pervert rationality and reason. This is ethics 101.

 

Unless of course, as LDS believe, God is the source of all morality. In which case obedience to your conscience or the light of Christ is a distinction without a difference. It is not an appeal to a authority, it is an appeal to morality itself. I am not sure why you imagine a slightly evolved primate brain would be a superior source but to each their own.

[The Nehor]

Human sexuality is fluid. If we are to define a sexual orientation spectrum a core requirement would be that the attraction is authentic, a judgement no one is qualified to make except the individual, and not a relationship established from religious obligation. Religion as motivation taints authenticity.

No it doesn't.

[Bernard Gui]

The agenda is to make money.

I don't agree. The agenda is to further their agenda. Reality shows about Mormon marriages, weird or not,

do not make money.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Bernard Gui