TLC has a controversial new show called “My Husband’s NOT Gay” about Mormon men with SSA (same-sex attraction) who are married to women. GLAAD, an LGBT advocacy group had this to say about it: “This show is downright irresponsible. 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.” Ty Mansfield, himself a SSA married Mormon responded to the outcry: “the sheer hatred and ugliness I have seen from many LGBT folks and supporters around this TLC special far exceeds anything I’ve seen from the vast majority of religious folks and is shameful and hypocritical coming from a community proclaiming that ‘all love is equal.’ The hypocrisy and double-standard is mind-blowing.”
At the heart of the controversy is the question: what exactly does it mean to be gay or to have SSA? In its very title, “My Husband is NOT Gay,” TLC invites viewers to make a distinction between people who claim to be gay, and those who have the same feelings, but don’t act on those feelings. The show effectively says: you can have SSA and still not be gay. This makes “being gay” a choice. And the LGBT community’s number #1 mantra has always been that being gay is NOT a choice, but rather a fundamental aspect of identity, like race or gender. Defenders of the show counter that they don’t judge others for making other choices. But even suggesting that there is a choice involved represents a direct affront to the LGBT agenda.
Is Same-Sex Attraction an Identity?
What is same-sex attraction anyway? Is it a simple matter of sexual preference, a preference which one can subdue through discipline if need be? Or is there something deeper about sexual orientation which cannot be subdued, which indeed would be harmful if subdued, like race or gender? One of the participants compared being gay to being oriented “towards donuts. I could eat a lot more donuts if I wanted to, but if I don’t, am I miserable, am I lonely?”
I agree that sexual attraction is only one of many dimensions of our identity. Among heterosexuals, many men get along fine even if they aren’t married to their sexual ideal. Most heterosexual men are attracted to young, thin, beautiful women. But how many of them are married to such women? And if they are, for how long? Biologically, we are sexually attracted to novelty and youth, yet over time we all become older and less attractive. But even when we don’t have our sexual ideal, the lack is more than made up for by other things which are deeper and longer lasting: friendship, sacrifice, compassion, the refinement of shared experience.
So what is the difference between a Mormon with SSA married to a woman, and a strait Mormon who is for example attracted to big-breasted women but married to a flat-chested woman? There is a big difference.
Is Sexual Orientation Deeper than Who You Are Sexually Attracted To?
In previous posts I have noted that men and women have a plethora of both masculine and feminine characteristics. Generally, women have more feminine characteristics, and men have more masculine characteristics. You could speculate that men in general are 80% masculine, 20% feminine and vice versa. Sexual attraction is one of these either masculine or feminine characteristics. Being attracted to men is understood as a “feminine” attribute. But many men who have this particular attribute also have other feminine attributes as well, and in a higher percentage than other heterosexual men. If I go into specifics I will surely be accused of “stereotyping.” However, it must be acknowledged as a self-evident reality that homosexual men have a more pronounced femininity in general than heterosexual men. This is not learned behavior but is present in the behavior of many children who turn out to be gay regardless of culture or upbringing.
Everyone is obviously different. Sexuality exists on a spectrum from complete heterosexuality through bi-sexuality to complete homosexuality. Some extremely masculine men happen to display that one feminine characteristic that makes them attracted to other men, as if it were some kind of fluke in their gender makeup. For others it is part of a more pronounced feminine identity. There should be nothing shameful or controversial about this fact. Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi had this to say about the virtues of possessing a more balanced spreadsheet of masculine and feminine characteristics:
Psychological androgyny is a much wider concept, referring to a person’s ability to be at the same time aggressive and nurturant, sensitive and rigid, dominant and submissive, regardless of gender. A psychologically androgynous person in effect doubles his or her repertoire of responses and can interact with the world in terms of a much richer and varied spectrum of opportunities. It is not surprising that creative individuals are more likely to have not only the strengths of their own gender but those of the other one, too…Perhaps the most noticeable evidence for the “femininity” of the men in the sample was their great preoccupation with their family and their sensitivity to subtle aspects of the environment that other men are inclined to dismiss as unimportant.
Each individual identity is a diverse constellation of masculine and feminine attributes, sorted and arranged in an infinite variety of ways. Yet society takes our beautiful individuality and forces us to chose between two blunt definitions of ourselves: gay or strait. Adding bisexual helps, but even three categories are hardly adequate to cope with the endless diversity of individual identity and its make-up of masculine and feminine traits.
Nevertheless, belonging to a society where “being gay” is actually recognized as a real thing, is much better than being in a society that pretends that everyone is supposed to be just one way. This is why the LGBT community is so upset about “My Husband’s Not Gay.” It wasn’t long ago when mainstream society didn’t even recognize the reality of inborn homosexuality. They have fought hard for this recognition, and they don’t want to see us go backward. However GLAAD’s fears are unfounded. Society is not going to slide back into homophobic prejudice in general.
GLAAD is looking at this the wrong way. They have justly won recognition for homosexuality. But what about the reality of bisexuality, the reality of religiously motivated SSA men who act strait, of adventurous strait people who act gay? And what about trying to parse out the rich tapestry of individual masculine and feminine traits in each person, instead of defining everyone ONLY by their particular sexual attraction?
Where Does This Leave SSA Mormon Men?
I think Mormon men with SSA have made enormous strides. They have gone from complete denial a century ago, to self-loathing decades ago, to their present acceptance and compromise. It might seem a little strange for strait Mormons to watch gay Mormon men reveal their intimate struggles so publicly. But this is an indication of just how important sexual identity really is for people. Even being able to acknowledge it openly brings self-acceptance and honesty. We heterosexuals can be openly heterosexual all our lives, so we don’t know just how damaging it can be to live in the closet.
And Mormon men with SSA are not buying into the pitfalls of GLAAD’s “either-or” world view, but instead are recognizing that identity is a complicated and multi-dimensional reality, which must necessarily compromise with the arbitrary realities of the world in order to survive. The harsh realities of religious culture and a person’s sexual identity CAN be reconciled, however imperfectly, and in that reconciliation comes sacrificial love and maturity.
Not Judging Others
For those not under our particular “covenant obligations” as Elder Oaks describes them, I see no reason to challenge Gentile gays to be celibate or marry those of the opposite sex. For many homosexuality is a natural, God-ordained reality, one which the church has admitted “may not go away in this life.” For Mormons, it is a “trial.” But should we try and make it one for non-Mormons? The TLC program has the potential to go in both directions, and it will be interesting to see which way it takes it. Will it try to insist that having SSA does not mean you are gay, and that it is a choice, even for non-Mormons? Or will the Mormons on the show make it clear that their choices and perspectives are based upon their own peculiar religious covenants and beliefs?
If these Mormons can present their situations as individual, not judging anyone else on a different path, while also showing how true love and unselfishness helped them transcend the purely sexual element of their being, I think it will be very positive. Modern society sees sexual attraction as the raison d’être of existence. But it is not. Even gay lovers will have to transcend their sexual attractions if they want to truly be happy together long-term, focusing instead upon friendship, love, and shared sacrifice. We must all exercise sexuality in an unselfish way, learning to make it all about “the other.” Maybe SSA married Mormon men will reach that level sooner than the rest of us. And while it might make things more difficult for them temporarily, it might ultimately make them better people.
Questions:
- Does having SSA mean you are gay?
- Is sexual orientation deeper than who you are attracted to?
- Is it possible for Mormon SSA men to discuss it in a way which is non-offensive and respectful of those who believe SSA represents a fundamental aspect of their identity?
- Will the show be a good and respectful portrayal of LDS beliefs on the subject of homosexuality?
Wheat & Tares 
*whistles*. Ok, I’m going for popcorn on this one.
“If I go into specifics I will surely be accused of “stereotyping.””
Oh yes, there will be a lot of that, some of it quite deserved. In trying to categorize and figure out sexuality (of any kind), we tend to forget that “they” are part of “us”; people of all different shapes and sizes, with a vast range of blessings and challenges, as well as an ever changing idea of what and to what level someone is desired.
I think this series (or episode, whatever it is) could have been done better looking at the ranges of situations people are in, without going into what influences could have possibly “made” them do or be what they are. Heck, they could have even found people in MOMs that aren’t Mormon. Instead we get a piece to ridicule how “that Utah religion” messes people up.
Anyway, on to popcorn.
It doesn’t bode well for the show that several of the men were involved in (now discredited) programs designed to change their sexual orientation. This is going to be a train wreck.
While it’s important to acknowledge that human sexual orientation is on a spectrum, people who haven’t even acknowledged being gay is innate haven’t earned the right to speak to those nuances. Instead they use that spectrum to cling to as though clutching at straws of false hope that maybe they aren’t really gay, not really going to be living a lie, that this somehow doesn’t constitute denial and self-loathing. SSA is a religiously invented term to allow people to stay in the untenable comfort zone of the closet. There are many human casualties to this approach.
Incidentally, if TLC had named the show “My Husband Is Gay” there would be less uproar in the gay community. It’s the unreasonable denial of sexual orientation that is harmful. This show can be used as a cudgel against an already vulnerable minority.
Not too long ago, it was standard for church leaders to privately counsel gay men to date and marry women, in hope that they would eventually turn “normal”. A lot of wrecked marriages and ruined lives resulted instead.
This modern approach to MoM portrayed in the show, while more transparent and less shaming, still doesn’t seem much different from the old “lavender marriages”. Still in the closet, but now the walls are glass.
As a gay man, here’s what I’ve learned in my own journey.
Labels are important in forming an identity. I have come to believe that people have a right to call themselves whatever they want, and should be given the courtesy by others to be known by the labels they choose. I used to reject the label “gay”, especially during the years I was engaged in sexual orientation change efforts. Accepting the label “gay” was an important step for ME in accepting and loving myself. That may or may not be the case for others. I guess that people have a right to call themselves a heterosexual with same sex attraction if they wish. I found that for myself, this kind of mental acrobatics was harmful.
I absolutely believe that sexual orientation is deeper than simple attraction. While I was suppressing it, I did not flourish as a human being. I think that suppressing sexual orientation leads to empty shells of human beings. I am a gay man who currently chooses to be celibate, even though I am inactive in the Church. That may change. But I definitely am more self-actualized as a human being as a celibate gay man, than when I was a celibate man with same sex attraction.
Not to be cheesy, but I like the symbol of the rainbow when approaching the diversity of people’s sexual orientation, biological sex, and gender identity, etc. There is a wide variety of kinds of gay men (for example) and there is no need for all of us to be the same in order to be truly “gay”. Identity politics are tough, though, and the labels some choose for themselves can be threatening to others. I think this is something that can and must be worked through in a pluralistic society (along with all others kinds of diversity).
I don’t think Mormons will come out of this looking good. My biggest concern about highlighting mixed orientation marriages is the ammunition (?) it gives to those who desperately want to believe that sexual orientation can be changed through psychological and spiritual efforts. LGBT folks are an inconvenience in the current model of the Plan of Salvation. Our existence causes others to encounter uncomfortable questions, which they no doubt wish to avoid (cog dis, anyone?). Believing that there may be a way to “fix” it so that it fits right into the Plan is a way to end the dissonance. It just isn’t very fair to the people involved.
I chose to pursue sexual orientation change efforts, and later I chose to end the efforts and accept a gay identity. I think every LGBT person has the right to choose their own path, including the choice to engage in sexual orientation change efforts. I just know that it was deeply harmful to me. Along the same lines, I think that people also have the right to marry who they want, including entering into a mixed orientation marriage. I think there should be “informed consent” about this for everyone involved, however. Eyes wide open and all of that…
A question that I’ve never been able to figure out on this front: how is it that so many LGBT’s think that all social institutions and labels are social constructed and thus potential targets for voluntary revision or rejection, except, apparently, being gay? Can somebody help me with this?
Hawkgrrrl, I agree it would have been much better to name the show My Husband’s Gay. Still provocative, but about more than just a river in Egypt. However, I take issue with what you say here: “people who haven’t even acknowledged being gay is innate haven’t earned the right to speak to those nuances. Instead they use that spectrum to cling to as though clutching at straws of false hope that maybe they aren’t really gay, not really going to be living a lie, that this somehow doesn’t constitute denial and self-loathing.”
I think anyone who struggles with this issue has earned the right to speak on the issue, certainly more than myself. I hope some of these SSA men will find their way to this blog post, because I would be interested in hearing their response.
Thanks for your insightful comment Jonathan. “I absolutely believe that sexual orientation is deeper than simple attraction. While I was suppressing it, I did not flourish as a human being.” This is my impression. It appears that the people on the show are trying to find a balance between suppression and honest acknowledgement.
Jeff G, well, LGBT is indeed championing the cause of those whose proclivities lie on the more extreme sides of the spectrum. I suppose that is their speciality. Everyone has a cause to fight for. But society needs a stronger counter-argument, one that doesn’t rely on the equally oppressive traditional view of homosexuality. Right now society is swinging towards the extremes of the pendulum, but hopefully it will calm down and find the balance in the middle soon.
“Ty Mansfield, himself a SSA married Mormon responded to the outcry: “the sheer hatred and ugliness I have seen from many LGBT folks and supporters around this TLC special far exceeds anything I’ve seen from the vast majority of religious folks and is shameful and hypocritical coming from a community proclaiming that ‘all love is equal.”
Whatever, Ty. Let’s compare apples to apples. You are comparing vocal advocates to commonplace religious “folks”. I place the majority of the blame for the historical physical and emotional abuse suffered by gays on the religious right who have been told by some imagined eternal being that gays are “less than” the rest of us and need god’s help (and theirs) to live life correctly and not pollute the air our children breathe.
That being said, I don’t have a problem with the show. Seeing how different people choose to navigate through life is a good thing. The life choices that the extremely religious yet LGBT have to make are decisions I would never want to be faced with.
The title of this post in generic terms is “Is ‘Title’ offensive to a small minority of the population?”
The answer to that question in generic terms is most likely, based upon the amount of offensive to some people TV shows on air. At least they seem to be tackling a serious social issue that may be invisible to many people. They also are primarily showcasing informed adults. There are many a reality show that star children, even young and easily exploitable children. That is far more offensive, even if the overall subject is benign.
It could only ‘offend’ those who, in spite of their professions of ‘openness’ or ‘tolerance’, have a PINK fit (yeah, pun most definitely intended) over the notion that a gay man (for purposes of this discussion, I’m not separating those that merely experienced same-sex attraction versus those that acted upon it, or with how many partners) can CHOOSE for himself to instead choose a woman in the ‘usual’ fashion, marry her, and build a faithful and loving marriage. The very existence of same tends to belie the notion that sexuality is hard-wired.
This is why I cling to the notion, that, though, yea, I’m some 41 years out of date since the American Psychiatry Association ruled that they no longer consider homosexuality to be a mental illness, that indeed it is, political correctness be damned. In this manner, therefore, like anyone that is mentally afflicted, we can treat gays with an extra measure of compassion (beyond, of course, what anyone that voluntarily elects ‘sin’ can expect from the Savior and/or His representatives), especially if they seek to no longer indulge in this behavior. This is, of course, is in the LDS societal context. Mine own staunch Libertarianism leads me to want to leave the LGBT community alone as much as possible; I don’t define myself publicly by my sexuality and I affirm (quite positively) their right to keep their private lives PRIVATE and do whatever they will ‘unmolested’. Likewise, I affirm my right to withdraw association from same and insulate my children and grandchildren from their influence.
But if the LGBT community wants to say, “No, hell no! We’re not mentally ill…that’s an outdated and barbaric notion!”, then please consider the Savior’s words regarding sticking stubbornly in sin:
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth (John 9:41)
So, my LGBT brothers and sisters, if you want to persist that you’re “ok”, that your choice of lifestyle is merely an alternate, then by all means do so. Farbeit for me to interfere with your free agency. Just please accord me the same privilege.
Sorry, but this is like a discussion on race. In other words, you can’t have one without getting huffy about it and attacking someone for an opinion or viewpoint.
Better to keep it to oneself.
#10 – (El Jefe de Colorado) – if you mean that this subject tends to generate more heat than light, couldn’t be more right. But “Keep it to yourself”? What happened to “Ye are the light of the World?” (Matt 5:14). Expecting approval or popularity from those whom have openly declared hostility to the Gospel and those that proclaim it is, IMO, a fool’s errand. Better to remain steadfast in preaching the Gospel and not concerning oneself about the approval of men.
Of course, there are venues where it’s a waste of time. Hence why also the Savior would give the warning about “casting pearls before swine” (Matt 7:6). Consider that the Savior Himself, who love and compassion for men obviously greatly exceeds mine by a veritably infinite degree, would use this “divisive” term (the revulsion of Middle Eastern cultures for the swine is well-documented and needs no further elaboration) for opponents of the Gospel might just indicate how much credence He gives to PR.
I suppose I can answer a few of the OP’s questions, although I don’t my answers really have validity for anyone other than me.
Except the last one. I’m with Hawkgrrrl on this one: it’s going to be a train wreck. Not only will LDS beliefs on SSA not end up being treated respectfully, that’s inevitable, as they’re complex, still evolving, and we can’t even agree on what they are completely.
But my main cringe is this: the reason for any TV show, especially of the reality genre, is viewership and ratings. This will be played for the ratings, which means played for the conflict and the controversy. I can’t imagine what level of greed and/or naivete would induce these families to participate in what is almost certain to be a painful public flaying.
Jonathan, your comments are very insightful and helpful. Thank you for sharing them with us. Unlike you, I never had to suppress my orientation, but I agree completely that it goes beyond simple attraction.
The OP points out, for example, that straight men tend to be attracted to young, thin women, but relatively few of us marry our ideal – and even if we do, those attributes tend to be fleeting. True enough; and despite the fact that I’m about to begin my second half-century, I’m still attracted to young, thin women.
But I’m also attracted to young, curvy ones, older, thin ones, pretty much just women of a very wide variety of ages and sizes. I’m a straight male, and my attraction to and pleasure in the company of the opposite sex goes beyond my choice of eternal companion or my “ideal beauty.” It is, as Jonathan notes about his own orientation, a huge part of what I am, which goes way beyond who I take, or wish to take, to bed.
And, because I’m straight, I’ve never really had to think that through or worry about it. For me, it’s water to the fish: something you don’t even notice until someone takes you out of it. My gay friends aren’t waterbreathers but they live here anyway. Their lives are like being continually waterboarded, with very brief intervals where they’re allowed to get a breath. I can’t even imagine it.
This show seems to me to have every potential of taking that immensely deep and complex issue and turning it into, at best, a feel-good charade on “coping with hardship;” at worst a cruel caricature.
I don’t agree with GLAAD’s statement completely, but I see where they are coming from.
There are unfortunately still a lot of people who believe homosexual feelings are chosen or the result of bad choices and can be “overcome.” People are trying to use legal means to marginalize people in homosexual relationships and express public disapproval.
I’m a celibate LDS guy with SSA. I support all the families in this show and any other family too.
But, there are big issues at play here which is what G LAAD is concerned about.
If you are a dude attracted to other dudes, you can label yourself however you want and nobody should care. The problem though is that there’s this Ex-Gay movement that is almost defunct, but still relevant in religious and conservative circles. The people talk about being cured from homosexuality through various methods. People use their stories as “proof” that being gay is a choice, and use them as ammo against gay people who accept that identity. But check out the ex-gay stories and you find out its all a game around vocabulary. Very, very few of the people involved claim to have changed their fundamental orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Almost all of them are only talking about stopping sexual acts with the same sex. So fine, if you want to say you changed from being gay, that’s ok I guess, but you need to explain what that means and make clear that your actual orientation didn’t change and dont just bury that big detail in the fine print. I think that’s the problem GLAAD has with the show title.
Also, stories of gay/SSA people who marry someone of the opposite gender have been used to argue that gay people don’t need a legal right to marry each other. I guess it helps people not feel so bad about being cruel to gay people if they imagine that all gay people can just decide to marry someone of the opposite sex and be fine with it.
In February 2014, the Deseret News published an opinion piece by Janet and Michael Erickson against same-sex marriage that highlights one of the couples featured in the TLC show and uses them to show that gay people don’t need to marry each other to be happy. So I think GLAAD is reasonably concerned how people will use these stories against people in different situations or who have made different choices.
Thanks for your great comments Iconoclast and tiago. El oso, I also think the title of my post is pretty lame. Of course you were right to point out that obviously everything is going to offend some minority group I asked Hawkgrrrl for better clickbait titles and she suggested “My Husband’s Not (Not) Gay” or “My Husband’s Not Gay Yet” or “Does This Closet Make Me Look Fat?” But the brilliance of those titles would have outshone my more boring post.
The more I think about this story, the more I think it really is a shame that these guys are being so demonized in the media. It’s hard to understand the anger behind Ty’s comment out of context, but people really think he and these other guys are monsters. I would hate to be seen as a monster in the gay community, especially if I was gay, and I was trying my best to be true to my beliefs.
I’m planning a new post about “blaming God” which will be about trying to give blame where blame is due on this, and so many of these controversial issues. I look at all this suffering and persecution, and there is only one thing for a believing member of the LDS church to ask: why? Why did God make gay people, and then set Himself against them? Its no wonder that this is an issue that is so effectively driving people out and against the church.
Anyone heterosexual who thinks you can just choose not to be gay should try it out for a year. Marry someone of your same sex, have sex with them, and so on, despite not being attracted to them. That might at least create some empathy. That’s probably a reality show worth watching.
This was an eye opening TV show, thanks TLC. .. I’ve long understood the difference between those who “ACT” on SSA & those who choose to NOT act on this obvious SIN of Homosexuality!
It’s great news America sees the Push from the DARK side (Hollywood & those with this Sexual Addiction) & that they’ve got what it takes (strength as child of God) to choose their behaviors! I’m proud of these people ALL of them!
Sjb
Gay/Lesbian & acting on those that is completely different than SSA.
Stop justifying these actions as
“Normal” just to get away with
SINNING!
#17 – it goes beyond not merely being lit up. Utter revulsion comes to mind at the suggestion of such a pathetic experiment.
Saw the show a few minutes ago and liked it. My impression of the one fellow, married (has one daughter with his wife and their second daughter lived tragically but 20 minutes, sorry I’m crappy on remembering names…) married his wife for the RIGHT reason…that he wants to share his life with her! Yes, the “SSA” does pose a challenge, but it’s clear that he’s in control of his desires and his sexual urges. Tends to belie the “Party Line” that ones urges inexorably draw a man with homosexual inclinations to lead the lifestyle; but this is but one man.
Just as you can’t pigeonhole me by my feelings and urges, it seems somewhat of an exercise in futility to predict the behavior of a man with SSA.
“Marry someone of your same sex, have sex with them, and so on, despite not being attracted to them.”
Real heterosexual marriages often don’t have perfect sex lives. There are couples who can’t have sex. There are couples who deal with one person dealing with sexual trauma from past abuse. There are couples where one person looses their sex drive. There are couples where one of them is infatuated with someone else but chooses to stay in the marriage. To insist that a mixed orientation marriage can’t be functional and bring a measure happiness is to ignore the reality that many marriages deal with many problems.
I know many women in their 40s who would rather have a sexless marriage with a man who loves them than a sexually active marriage with a man who doesn’t love them/is a jerk. Sure, it would be nice to have it all, but most people I know with long marriages deal with issues in the marriage. You can accept that your spouse can’t be everything ideal and you don’t let that determine your happiness.
The only factor in making a marriage successful is the commitment both partners have to making it work and caring for the other person. If you have that you can do anything.
I saw it this morning.
My overriding reaction is that it was pretty transparent that it was all staged. Didn’t believe for a single second that the women hiking hadn’t rehearsed their “conversations”, that the guys who appeared in the clothing store weren’t there on purpose with planned reactions or that the blind date wasn’t aware before the filmed dinner that the single guy wouldn’t tell her he was gay at the conclusion of their date.
Nevertheless, however prepared everyone may have been for the portions that were filmed, there were several scenes where people who were reacting couldn’t prevent withering looks that seems to belie all the chipper faced on camera interviews.
I wish them all well because they’re people and I think adults get to negotiate their own personal arrangements. But I can’t say it didn’t strike me as unusual (I did NOT say suspect) that there aren’t many children in those 3 marriages.
Nate asks, Why did God make gay people, and then set Himself against them?
I’m not so sure that either of those things are true. I think Mormon theodicy is grossly underdeveloped, which in balance is probably a good thing (this might be a separate post, but there’s something to be said for the idea that we’re focused on living our religion rather than philosophizing about how many wingless, resurrected angels can shake hands on the head of a pin, especially if we’re using the singularly inapt language of traditional Trinitarian theology to do it), BUT, as Nate rightly points out, it might be time that we as a people sought clarification from the Lord on why difficult things happen to people. And there is no question that homosexual orientation, especially in the Church, is a difficult thing.
That said, to return to my initial statement, I don’t know that God “makes” people that way. I think that there are a great many things which happen to us, as a result of genetics, environment, and pure chance, that have nothing to do with divine control or plan, or with the condition of our pre-mortal spirits. It’s quite possible that SSA is something like that.
Some people object to this viewpoint on the grounds that it makes SSA seem to be a “flaw” or “defect.” Unfortunately, there’s so much strong feeling wrapped up in people’s opinions on the subject, that it’s almost impossible to discuss the matter dispassionately – our hearts cry out against the idea. However, I think we have to be willing to admit the possibility. For that matter, it’s possible that gender and sexual attraction or any sort are solely mortal constructs, and we’ll find ourselves without such encumbrances in eternity.
Not all variations (“imperfections,” if you will) of our physical bodies are of necessity crippling or limiting. I have a child with Asperger’s Syndrome, a mild form of autism. (I probably have the same issue myself.) I don’t believe that God “made” my son that way on purpose; it just happened due to “the thousand natural shocks / That flesh is heir to.” The condition limits him in some ways and blesses him in others; he learns how to cope. He served an honorable, if difficult, mission and married in the temple. He’s having a little trouble figuring out what to do now.
I don’t mean to equate the issues my son faces as an Aspie with the issues a gay Latter-day Saint faces in the world and in LDS culture; only to say that I don’t know that God “made” either one that way, and I certainly don’t think that Heavenly Father has “set Himself against them.” I do understand how, in the depths of pain, it seems that way at times. Worse, unlike much of the pain and despair which all humans face, which should allow us to empathize with the difficulties people with SSA face, the Church and (to a thankfully lessening extent) our society tend both to create pain and despair for that population and then to de-legitimize their feeling it. For all of us who hurt, however, for any reason, I don’t believe that Heavenly Father has made us hurt. I think He realizes that we will, understands that it can (if we allow it) work to our benefit like everything else that happens to us, and in the end, He knows that someday, we’ll discover that His love for us was so very much bigger than anything we went through here that we ourselves will be humbled by its immensity.
But I also believe that He weeps with us when we weep.
Does having SSA mean you are gay?
“SSA” is a fraudulent term, created by Evangelical anti-gay and “ex-gay” organizations, and then adopted by Mormon leadership, with the specific intention of denying that anyone is actually born gay. As Dallin Oaks once claimed, they are supposedly heterosexuals with “homosexual problems.” By using “SSA,” these groups present homosexuality as a disease/disorder/syndrome, which begs for “cure.”
Is sexual orientation deeper than who you are attracted to?
To say that a man is gay means he is “emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionally, or relationally attracted to other men” (John Hopkins University LGBT Life website). Assuming that you’re asking whether sexual orientation is deeper than sexual attraction, I would say absolutely YES. When I was a young man, it was relatively easy to deny myself the sexual partners I would have preferred. As I matured, however, it became increasingly clear that my sexual orientation was much more relational—that real intimacy would require that I be with a man. That’s what I couldn’t go on living without—not just “better sex.”
Is it possible for Mormon SSA men to discuss it in a way which is non-offensive and respectful of those who believe SSA represents a fundamental aspect of their identity?
No, since as I pointed out, “SSA” is a fraudulent term specifically created in order to deny/demonize gay identity. When someone attempts to refer to me as “SSA,” I find it offensive, and I make it clear that I am an openly GAY man, who is happy and at peace with his sexual orientation.
Will the show be a good and respectful portrayal of LDS beliefs on the subject of homosexuality?
I don’t believe the show particularly portrayed LDS beliefs, though it mentioned them several times. The problem is that genuine LDS beliefs don’t include the sort of freak show that these men have turned their lives into—-that part does NOT provide a “good and respectful portrayal of LDS beliefs.”
#20 – Douglas, if “utter revulsion” does not come to mind at the idea of a gay man (not a bisexual one, a gay man) trying to make a life married to and sleeping with a woman, I suggest you do not yet understand much about SSA.
Nick, my apologies for use of the term “SSA.” I find it descriptive, but I absolutely see the point you make.
Unfortunately, it seems that any term is so loaded with connotation that there really isn’t a safe one – unfortunately, not even a medical or scientific one. Reclamation of the once-pejorative “gay” may be the best thing we’ve got going.
New Iconoclast, I personally wish that if people are going to be squeamish about saying “gay,” that they use a more direct phrase that doesn’t come out of anti-gay activism and “reparative therapy” circles. I could easily understand one of these men, for example saying “I am homosexually attracted, but I choose not to identify as gay.” That would be accurate, and avoid the baggage of either “SSA” or the “lifestyle” (ugh—I hate that term) matters which religious folks tend to associate with “gay.”
Duly noted, Nick, and good to know as well. I don’t think I’m squeamish, just ignorant – and now less so. Thanks.
New Iconoclast, I suppose it’s a matter of interpretation. We don’t like the idea of “blaming God” which sounds like we’re passing the buck. We try to follow the scripture from Job, “he charged not God foolishly.” But we misunderstand Job I think. Job said to his wife, “Shall we accept good from the Lord’s hand, but not evil?” Job acknowledged that both good and evil came from God. But this was not “charging God foolishly.” It was acknowledging, “thou He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.” The opening chapter of Job is a tacked on introduction, unrelated to the rest of the book, makes serves to make a distinction between God and Satan by positing a sort of mythical dialogue that explains how God got tangled up in Job’s trials. But through the rest of the book, God is held responsible for everything. There is no Satan.
God IS responsible, and because He is the cause, He is the solution. He paid the price for our sins, because He is partially responsible, by creating the circumstances which led to those sins. Jesus created a hellish world, and He came down to suffer along with it. The hellishness of it is part of the point, opposition in all things. But God doesn’t shirk His responsibility, nor pass the blame. He gives Himself up as a lamb to the slaughter for it, so that together, we can overcome the opposition and progress in infinite ways. Dumping all this on Satan or “genetics” or impersonal forces unrelated to God denies us of the intimacy we need to try and sort out the metaphysical problem.
“God IS responsible, and because He is the cause, He is the solution.”
Of course, there is the possibility that god is not responsible because he is simply the creation of anxiety-filled man and gays suffer needlessly at the hands of those who think god disapproves of them. Just sayin’.
Nate, I see what you’re saying, and there is definitely merit in it. I completely accept a statement like, “He is partially responsible, by creating the circumstances which led to those sins,” and your beautiful conclusion that He doesn’t shirk His responsibility.
However, I think that there is a wide gap between “He created the circumstances” and “He moves us around on the board like little chess pieces.” My current view on that, while certainly admitting the possibility of change, lands in the neighborhood I’ve surveyed above. I probably haven’t explained it very well, but on the spectrum between “God the Puppetmaster” and “God the Watchmaker,” I lean toward, but not all the way over to, the Watchmaker.
In more explicit terms, I think it quite possible that we’ll someday find that gay orientation is an artifact of our physical chemistry, not a pre-existent and eternal characteristic of our spirits. Even if that is true, it should still redefine the question of how to handle the issue of gay members in the Church, which is currently rooted (as Nick points out) in an outdated “sinful choice” paradigm.
New Iconoclast, I agree that God is not a micromanager. I suppose I mean God as in “fate, providence, grace, chance,” as well as in the anthropomorphic LDS sense. So probably we are both in agreement, its just that I’m taking a broader definition of God. God set us with war with ourselves in that he created our nature, and then proclaimed “the natural man is an enemy to God.” But the common understanding is that our nature is evil, that it comes from Satan. Everything good comes from God, everything evil from Satan. We cast ourselves as players in a simple war between good and evil. What I’m suggesting is that good and evil come from the same place, or rather that God uses both to His ends. This paradigm has profoundly different implications on the way we look at and deal with the trials of the world. Mormons also have this additional crazy idea which is that “we chose our trials in the preexistence” which I suppose is another attempt to reconcile the oppositional duality we face in life, which we don’t like to pile all on God. But in my heart, the true and humble response to trial is always that of Job, “shall we accept good at God’s hand, but not evil?” It’s about submission.
#25 – evidently my rejoinder didn’t answer the mail.
My ‘revulsion’ is NOT that a man with SSA would, rather than give into same urges, marry a woman and do his best to build a satisfying marriage. I applaud the dear brother that’s doing precisely that.
The ‘revulsion’ is my visceral reaction to Hawk’s suggestion that a straight man attempt a gay relationship, including sexual contact, as a counterpart to what the ‘SSA’-afflicted man is doing with a woman. It wouldn’t ever work b/c I’m not that good an actor, and any man who put the moves on me would likely be pounded within an inch of his life – not that methinks myself to be in any serious jeapordy of same.
Now, the late Robert Reed, playing Mike Brady and producer Sherwood Schwartz (who wasn’t given to what was then considered risque on TV) depicting Mike and Carol TOGETHER in a king-sized bed. Revolutionary back in ’69, folks! Knowing that Mr. Reed was indeed gay (the cast all knew and were comfortable with that), I can say that the man was a truly gifted actor, or at least was bisexual, b/c there was definite chemistry between him and Florence Henderson, which helped make the series the runaway success it was. Nowadays, a revamped BB series would have the kids dealing with some kid saying “your Mom is hot!” or something like that.