Article on hetero marriage with SSA

[Soulsearcher]

You would think that bisexual people wouldn't have it any harder than hetersexual people when it comes to getting married because we all have to make the decision to be faithful to one person. To me it sounds like the article addresses a homosexual man who found it possible to get married despite not being attracted to women.

One would think, except it depends which type of relationship they develop first and what kind of environment they come from. As said in the past Ty did have relationships with males and they seem to be his first relationships so those can set a bit of a foot hold, add to that the church's tendency to lump all same sex attraction together vs separating by actual orientation and you have some one who, even if bi, would still have much of the same guilt and fears because, while they might have bisexual leanings, they also have the dreaded blanket same sex attraction. Again no one has said anything for sure, some have just pondered due to his choice of words and how seemingly simple he seems to make it sound in the article. so far no one has said anything negative about him or said they know anything for certain, just simple pondering about a possibility.

[carlimac]

I think it's interesting that with this article on a successful marriage of someone with SSA there were some pretty quick to suggest he must be bisexual (making it easier to be in a hetero marriage since he would have attraction to women). But when we hear of marriages failing because of SSA, there is never mention at all that perhaps the man may have been a bisexual. The attitude seems to always be that the marriage failed because he could not possibly have felt (nor should he have if he's gay) any attraction to his wife and he was lying to himself, his clergy, his wife and that he caved under too much social pressure. That's why he got married in the first place. The reason for the failed marriage could never have had anything to do with, say... financial issues or family discord or simple irreconcilable differences. The guy always seems to escape responsibility for the failed marriage because of the social pressure andhow he could possibly be expected to act straight for the rest of his life?

Has anyone else picked up on that subtle little attitude? That failed marriages are excused-given an enormous benefit of the doubt, but in successful marriages he or she must not have genuine full SSA. Wouldn't it be nice to always know perfect strangers so well?

Edited May 30, 2012 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

I think it's interesting that with this articleon a successful marriage of someone with SSA there were some pretty quick to suggest he must be bisexual (making it easier to be in a hetero marriage since he would have attraction to women). But when we hear of marriages failing because of SSA, there is never mention at all that perhaps the man may have been a bisexual. The attitude seems to always be that the marriage failed because he could not possibly have felt (nor should he have if he's gay) any attraction to his wife and he was lying to himself, his clergy, his wife and that he caved under too much social pressure. That's why he got married in the first place. The reason for the failed marriage could never have had anything to do with, say... financial issues or family discord or simple irreconcilable differences. The guy always seems to escape responsibility for the failed marriage because of the social pressure andhow he could possibly be expected to act straight for the rest of his life?

Has anyone else picked up on that subtle little attitude? That failed marriages are excused-given an enormous benefit of the doubt, but in successful marriages he or she must not have genuine full SSA. Wouldn't it be nice to always know perfect strangers so well?

I have yet to see anyone say he must be bi, i have seen a number of people question if he might be bi. A very large difference and really not such an out of place question. I find it more interesting people are so threatened by even a simple insinuation. Both sides tend to ask the same type questions and the other side seems to pretty much react the same way.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would imagine it is just like any type of union, if it is based in love for the individual as opposed to just physical attraction then it has a greater chance of lasting. Physical attraction may bring people together but what really makes a companionship last is love for the other person. I know that I would love my husband even if he was hurt to the point of destroying any physically attracting aspect of himself. If he were to have MS and not be able to function in that capacity or if he were burned all over his body etc., I believe my love for him supersedes the physical attraction. The physical attraction is not the "glue" of our marriage, it is more like the icing on the cake. (*blushing*) Our marriage is not hanging by the thread of physical attraction. Physical attraction, just like anything else created by the dust of this world will also turn back to dust, at least for the most part. We shouldn't put the desires of our heart into anything that is so short lived or carnal in nature, God wants us to gather treasures in things that are eternal in nature. When people put the desires of their heart on things that are carnal, they will find disappointment and frustration because those things don't last.

[carlimac]

I have yet to see anyone say he must be bi, i have seen a number of people question if he might be bi. A very large difference and really not such an out of place question. I find it more interesting people are so threatened by even a simple insinuation. Both sides tend to ask the same type questions and the other side seems to pretty much react the same way.

I don't see a very big difference between "must be" and "might be" in the case of this marriage. Why ask the question or make that assumption at all?

I'm not feeling threatened by the insinuation- only disappointed by the skepticism. Why not simply allow oneself to feel joy in the happiness of another that came from them making a righteous decision.

[carlimac]

I would imagine it is just like any type of union, if it is based in love for the individual as opposed to just physical attraction then it has a greater chance of lasting. Physical attraction may bring people together but what really makes a companionship last is love for the other person. I know that I would love my husband even if he was hurt to the point of destroying any physically attracting aspect of himself. If he were to have MS and not be able to function in that capacity or if he were burned all over his body etc., I believe my love for him supersedes the physical attraction. The physical attraction is not the "glue" of our marriage, it is more like the icing on the cake. (*blushing*) Our marriage is not hanging by the thread of physical attraction. Physical attraction, just like anything else created by the dust of this world will also turn back to dust, at least for the most part. We shouldn't put the desires of our heart into anything that is so short lived or carnal in nature, God wants us to gather treasures in things that are eternal in nature. When people put the desires of their heart on things that are carnal, they will find disappointment and frustration because those things don't last.

Wonderfully said!

[Guest]

I'm not feeling threatened by the insinuation- only disappointed by the skepticism. Why not simply allow oneself to feel joy in the happiness of another that came from them making a righteous decision.

Well, see here, Carli... as far as Soulsearcher goes, it touches on a dichotomy because if you present this as the righteous decision, then his choice becomes the not-so-righteous decision. So, it is to be expected that he'll lay heavier on the skepticism of his bisexuality than not. And I'm just fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is that we, as ones who believe in following church counsel on the matter, are thought of as "threatened by the insinuation" because we see statements in the article that makes bisexuality a lot less probable.

I see this all the time in Soul's posts. So, I don't quite know how to take him. He is pretty good with promoting understanding but I can't help but feel that he's just as intolerant as the people he accuses of being intolerant, except coming from the other side. So yeah, kinda like that poster on my boss' cubicle "Diplomacy is having someone else do it your way."

[carlimac]

Well, see here, Carli... as far as Soulsearcher goes, it touches on a dichotomy because if you present this as the righteous decision, then his choice becomes the not-so-righteous decision. So, it is to be expected that he'll lay heavier on the skepticism of his bisexuality than not. And I'm just fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is that we, as ones who believe in following church counsel on the matter, are thought of as "threatened by the insinuation" because we see statements in the article that makes bisexuality a lot less probable.

I see this all the time in Soul's posts. So, I don't quite know how to take him. He is pretty good with promoting understanding but I can't help but feel that he's just as intolerant as the people he accuses of being intolerant, except coming from the other side. So yeah, kinda like that poster on my boss' cubicle "Diplomacy is having someone else do it your way."

I realize this about Soulsearcher and others who have chosen a different path than the Lord sets for us. But the fact that he has been a member (actually still is) means he has some understanding of a spiritually directed life, or at least he would know that believing members of the church would see this whole ball of gum in a different perspective. That's why some of his (and other posters) attitudes seem underhanded. At the very least, those types of attitudes seem meant in a very insidious way to condemn our beliefs and make us look foolish rather than to educate us. I don't feel threatened by it. Only confused at the motive. Really-what's the point of sparring with us aside from the entertainment value of it?

[Soulsearcher]

I'll address both carlimac and anatess with the same response.

How many times have i said or suggested something and even though it's coming from a direct experience has people on this board told me i'm wrong, or i just don't get it, or some such things. even when it comes from the source if it doesn't agree with your view you will question or flat out disagree. I can say one thing and people say "well that's not how it really is, i know better. So is it so surprising that others take the same approach to situations?

If gays question or show doubt about something said we are in the wrong, yet if we share our thoughts and experiences much like the person in the initial article we tend to be blown off or dismissed for various reasons.

there is a huge difference between what someone "might be" and what someone "must be". One is a question looking for a little more information and enlightenment, the other is closer to a sure statement about the subject. One might be excommunicated for something vs one must be excommunicated .

I have to say that i'm a little disheartened by the views of both of the women towards my intent. Missionaries go forth everyday, sometimes a little over zealous to convey information and share what they know, softening peoples hearts towards the gospel and being emissaries and examples. It's something honorable and praised with in your faith, a divine calling. Someone doing the same with the same motive but from a different point of view does it and tries to be respectful and it's being intolerant and insidious. I know it's hard to view in the same light, but think about missionaries preaching to people of other faiths trying to convert them, is it out of disrespect and dislike or do they have better motives. While i'm sure missionaries do get entertainment out of some parts of their missions I'm sure that's not their only intent on going, if it is i've been sadly mislead.

[Guest]

I'll address both carlimac and anatess with the same response.

How many times have i said or suggested something and even though it's coming from a direct experience has people on this board told me i'm wrong, or i just don't get it, or some such things. even when it comes from the source if it doesn't agree with your view you will question or flat out disagree. I can say one thing and people say "well that's not how it really is, i know better. So is it so surprising that others take the same approach to situations?

If gays question or show doubt about something said we are in the wrong, yet if we share our thoughts and experiences much like the person in the initial article we tend to be blown off or dismissed for various reasons.

there is a huge difference between what someone "might be" and what someone "must be". One is a question looking for a little more information and enlightenment, the other is closer to a sure statement about the subject. One might be excommunicated for something vs one must be excommunicated .

I have to say that i'm a little disheartened by the views of both of the women towards my intent. Missionaries go forth everyday, sometimes a little over zealous to convey information and share what they know, softening peoples hearts towards the gospel and being emissaries and examples. It's something honorable and praised with in your faith, a divine calling. Someone doing the same with the same motive but from a different point of view does it and tries to be respectful and it's being intolerant and insidious. I know it's hard to view in the same light, but think about missionaries preaching to people of other faiths trying to convert them, is it out of disrespect and dislike or do they have better motives. While i'm sure missionaries do get entertainment out of some parts of their missions I'm sure that's not their only intent on going, if it is i've been sadly mislead.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. And there's nothing wrong with anybody telling somebody he's wrong. You can say it to me, I can say it to you, we agree to disagree. We're all welcome to believe what we want to believe. And that's why we discuss things here so we can understand why you believe that way and you can understand why we believe this way.

But, when you say things like:

"I find it more interesting people are so threatened by even a simple insinuation."

across the bow, you can't claim "understanding" nor "respect" as a motive regardless of how rude somebody else is to you. I, for one, am not "people of this board". So, their being intolerant of you doesn't make it okay for you to be intolerant right back. Well, actually, you can do whatever you want as long as we can call it as we see it.

Peace.

Edited May 30, 2012 by anatess

[carlimac]

It's just that the LDS point of view on gay marriage is vastly different from the popular or politically correct or Hollywood view. I appreciate the education when it comes to same gender attraction, what it feels like to be cast out from families and friends. But there is nothing to educate us on when it comes to gay marriage or gay sexual relations. The door is closed on those topics because they are totally against the commandments. Any effort of yours to educate us on that is unwarranted. The Lord doesn't tolerate it in the least degree.

[Desertknight]

Unfortunately, what constitutes 50% of all "straight" marriages in America, are totally against the commandments. Once marriage was turned into a government contract and government redefined it through divorce and remarriage, it was only a matter of time before same-sex marriage was going to occur. As I posted on another related thread,

"It becomes problematic, when Rush Limbaugh rails against gay marriage, while he is in a state sanctioned adulterous relationship with "wife" #4. IOW, he benefits from the very thing, (the state redefining marriage) that will inevitably lead to what he opposes.

[Soulsearcher]

It's just that the LDS point of view on gay marriage is vastly different from the popular or politically correct or Hollywood view. I appreciate the education when it comes to same gender attraction, what it feels like to be cast out from families and friends. But there is nothing to educate us on when it comes to gay marriage or gay sexual relations. The door is closed on those topics because they are totally against the commandments. Any effort of yours to educate us on that is unwarranted. The Lord doesn't tolerate it in the least degree.

How many mainstream christians would say the same about the LDS chruch. That the LDS view is totally against what christ actually taught and believe ect ect ect. does that change your attempts to have civil discourses with them and to try and have them stop twisting and dismissing how vital your beliefs and way of life is to you. To many you are as bad if not worse than gays and yet nothing they say will change your determination and dedication. To many you are just as much heathen as i, just as lost and confused, but does that change anything for you? do you stop trying to spread and live your truth?

[Vort]

Unfortunately, what constitutes 50% of all "straight" marriages in America, are totally against the commandments. Once marriage was turned into a government contract and government redefined it through divorce and remarriage, it was only a matter of time before same-sex marriage was going to occur. As I posted on another related thread,

"It becomes problematic, when Rush Limbaugh rails against gay marriage, while he is in a state sanctioned adulterous relationship with "wife" #4. IOW, he benefits from the very thing, (the state redefining marriage) that will inevitably lead to what he opposes.

I don't understand. Does the Catholic Church believe state governments have the divine authority to contract the marriage sacrament? If not, then Rush Limbaugh is not married to anyone in the eyes of Catholicism.

[Soulsearcher]

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing. And there's nothing wrong with anybody telling somebody he's wrong. You can say it to me, I can say it to you, we agree to disagree. We're all welcome to believe what we want to believe. And that's why we discuss things here so we can understand why you believe that way and you can understand why we believe this way.

But, when you say things like:

"I find it more interesting people are so threatened by even a simple insinuation."

across the bow, you can't claim "understanding" nor "respect" as a motive regardless of how rude somebody else is to you. I, for one, am not "people of this board". So, their being intolerant of you doesn't make it okay for you to be intolerant right back. Well, actually, you can do whatever you want as long as we can call it as we see it.

Peace.

the issue being and maybe it is a language thing, as in the past you have stated that it could be an issue. When people brought up the possibility you seemed to have a very strong reaction. I was not aiming nor was any of the people who brought it up at being intolerant, just posing a query. The strong reaction you seemed to have it what made it seem you were threatened in some way be the suggestion there could be more to the story. Just like when it comes to marriage you insist there is more to the story and are sure that what people say isn't what they want. You take the story, and you put in your experience and they you state what you think is true with a very strong statement of fact. So far everyone who's voiced an dissenting opinion on this thread has more asked a question rather than stated a fact. If asking questions to gain understanding is bad then how does one actually get to the truth?

[Desertknight]

I don't understand. Does the Catholic Church believe state governments have the divine authority to contract the marriage sacrament? If not, then Rush Limbaugh is not married to anyone in the eyes of Catholicism.

It isn't the state that contracts it. It isn't the priest who contracts it. The only ones who can contract a marriage is the bride and groom, whether civil or sacramental. They cannot do so however, if it is contrary to the moral law.

[carlimac]

It isn't the state that contracts it. It isn't the priest who contracts it. The only ones who can contract a marriage is the bride and groom, whether civil or sacramental. They cannot do so however, if it is contrary to the moral law.

I don't know for sure but I think it's only Catholics that don't believe in divorce. Correct me if I'm wrong. So if Rush Limbaugh is married for the 4th time and he isn't a practicing Catholic (is he?) then ...well he is married.

[annewandering]

It isn't the state that contracts it. It isn't the priest who contracts it. The only ones who can contract a marriage is the bride and groom, whether civil or sacramental. They cannot do so however, if it is contrary to the moral law.

They certainly can in the US. Now whether that marriage is valid in the Catholic church is a whole nother question. :)

[Desertknight]

I don't know for sure but I think it's only Catholics that don't believe in divorce. Correct me if I'm wrong. So if Rush Limbaugh is married for the 4th time and he isn't a practicing Catholic (is he?) then ...well he is married.

So if I don't believe that killing my neighbour is a sin....it isn't?

I'm not trying to "get your goat", I'm just pointing out that the moral law applies to all. When Our Lord declared,

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

He was not speaking only to Christians. Indeed, his comments were specifically made to those who were not. The issue btw, is not separation, (whether called "divorce" by the state or not). The issue is the idea that one can "re-marry". No major branch of Christianity permitted it until the modern era. Indeed, it wasn't even legal until "state" marriages came into being during the Enlightenment.

Edit: This is an interesting link on the history of British divorce law, which illustrates my point.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Desertknight

[Desertknight]

They certainly can in the US. Now whether that marriage is valid in the Catholic church is a whole nother question. :)

So if two men "marry" in the State of Iowa, (along with six other states.), are they actually.....married?

See the problem with that? It does point out however, the very dilemma that I am referring to.

[annewandering]

They can marry if the state allows but is it valid? Not to me it isnt because its two guys but it is to the State Of Iowa.

[carlimac]

I'd say yes, they are actually married. And it is valid and legal there, but not a righteous union before our Heavenly Father. They will eventually be held accountable and pay the consequences depending on their level of understanding of the Plan of Salvation. I'm just glad I'm not the judge.

[annewandering]

The thing here, Carli, is that if its legal they have logical reason to think it is acceptable so not a sin.

However how can they be married, other than legally, if marriage is between a man and a woman? If I call my rose a daisy its still not a daisy.

[carlimac]

The thing here, Carli, is that if its legal they have logical reason to think it is acceptable so not a sin.

However how can they be married, other than legally, if marriage is between a man and a woman? If I call my rose a daisy its still not a daisy.

Interesting question. I was thinking about a lot of things that are legal but a sin, like adultery, premarital sex, abortion, divorce (according to Deseret Knight), drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco (according to Mormons), shopping on Sunday (according to moi). All these things are acceptable to some people and not acceptable to others. I guess the point is that people have such a variety of standards and beliefs of what is acceptable and what isn't that, sadly, the government is continually looking at the lowest common denominator of standards to determine what is legal. I honestly don't know if there is anything we can do about this downward spiral other than vote our conscience when we have the opportunity and try to get the most morally upright men and women into office.

I hate to say it, but the definition of marriage is changing and expanding. That doesn't make the change right or acceptable. I certainly don't like it. But if the general population defines a homosexual as "gay", we can't stop them from using that word. It would be nice if gay always and forever meant "happy, cheerful, or delighted". But people have added to that word's definition and once the ball gets rolling it's impossible to stop. Two men or two women who have bound themselves legally in certain states are "married" whether we recognize it or not. But whether or not God recognizes it is what matters most-eventually. And the termination of that union won't happen unless they get legally divorced or until they die and then I would imagine Heavenly Father will say...no, you can't be together now because actually you never were meant to be together in the first place.

Obviously I'm not privy to what God will say, but I don't think He'll be all too happy about it. I don't think He recognizes it as marriage at all. And there may even be punishment involved for breaking commandments. Or maybe there will be natural consequences- like forcing them to stay together when they are in the eternal worlds and can see everyone else in man-woman relationships. They want a hetero union now, but sorry- what was bound on earth is bound in heaven. Gotta stay in that man-man or woman-woman relationship. That would be he**. OK this is me just letting my imagination run wild. No such doctrine to be found anywhere, I'm pretty sure.

Edited June 1, 2012 by carlimac

[carlimac]

How many mainstream christians would say the same about the LDS chruch. That the LDS view is totally against what christ actually taught and believe ect ect ect. does that change your attempts to have civil discourses with them and to try and have them stop twisting and dismissing how vital your beliefs and way of life is to you. To many you are as bad if not worse than gays and yet nothing they say will change your determination and dedication. To many you are just as much heathen as i, just as lost and confused, but does that change anything for you? do you stop trying to spread and live your truth?

Depends on if you're simply trying to teach people something they don't know AND if you have an interested audience or if you're trying to change their opinions and beliefs. Some Evangelical Christians will never listen to what I say. I've tried to tell some about the gospel but they rejected it so I leave them alone. They know where to find more info about the LDS Church if they want it. I don't hang around their forums and argue with them. That is counter -productive because it would only irritate them.

Missionaries go about it the same way- they are constantly searching for people who are ripe and ready to accept their message. If after a time, it's rejected, they move on. It's a waste of their time and effort to keep visiting if the person clearly has no interest in learning anymore or joining the church. Now perhaps another set of missionaries will find that person later and the attitude will have changed and the person will be open to the message.

The other thing missionaries don't do is go in and point out how wrong people are. They are instructed to NOT endlessly argue their points with people who don't want to listen or who are contentious. That can be entertaining but as far as I've ever heard, it's clearly against mission rules. They are to present the gospel in a positive light. They teach truths and the Holy Ghost confirms that truth to the person if they are ready for it. The Holy Ghost won't be present when there is contention or anger or criticism.

So you're dealing with an audience here that probably for the most part doesn't look too favorably on gay marriage. (I realize there are exceptions here. I don't understand that but I don't live in their minds nor have I had their life experiences. Whatever.) So the chances of your opinions being chased out of town are pretty high if you're arguing that gay relationships are good, sweet and wonderful. I'm pretty sure that's what happened to GaySaint. I was willing to listen to him till he said he believes Heavenly Father wants him to be married to his gay partner. How could he not expect LDS folks on this forum to balk at that. He grew up LDS and knew all there is to know about our doctrine. So to claim that on an LDS website is pretty risky. I'm sorry he's gone. He was a nice guy.

Anyway, I appreciate what you have taught us about SSA. I have gained insight from you. But there comes a point when you reach the end of the line. Gay relationships are where the trolley stops and you need to get off. If you have a problem with LDS viewpoints on gay marriage, take it up with President Monson and see if he can get the Lord to change the rules.

I'm not telling you to leave. You've been here longer than I have and I'm sure people like you more than they like me. I'm just saying, it's a real stretch to think you'll change any opinions here...says me anyway.

Edited May 31, 2012 by carlimac