Slog
News & ArtsMonday, June 11, 2012
Hetero / Religion / LGBTQITSLFA Gay Man Marries Straight Woman, Enjoys Fucking Her, Writes Blog Post About It, Internet Explodes
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM
I wrote this...
How important do you think sexual chemistry/compatibility is in a long-term relationship?
Sexual chemistry/compatibility is only as important as sexual exclusivity/satisfaction is. And for the record: Companionate marriage—the union of two individuals who love each other but don't fuck (or don't fuck each other)—can be wonderful.
So I don't necessarily have a problem with this. Josh Weed is devout Mormon and a gay man who married a straight Mormon woman—his pre-school sweetheart—and while his opposite-sex marriage isn't exactly companionate (he fucks his wife! he enjoys it!), the way he and his wife live and experience sexual attraction is different and, he argues, kindasorta superior to marriages that are mucked up by lust and physical chemistry:
If you’re married to a woman, how can you really be gay?
This is a really good question and I can see how people can be confused about it. Some might assume that because I’m married to a woman, I must be bisexual. This would be true if sexual orientation was defined by sexual experience. Heck, if sexual orientation were defined by sexual experience, I would be as straight as the day is long even though I’ve never been turned on by a Victoria’s Secret commercial in my entire life. Sexual orientation is defined by attraction, not by experience. In my case, I am attracted sexually to men. Period. Yet my marriage is wonderful, and Lolly and I have an extremely healthy and robust sex life. How can this be?
The truth is, what people are really asking with the above question is “how can you be gay if your primary sex partner is a girl?” I didn’t fully understand the answer to this question until I was doing research on sexuality in grad school even though I had been happily married for almost five years at that point. I knew that I was gay, and I also knew that sex with my wife was enjoyable. But I didn’t understand how that was happening. Here is the basic reality that I actually think many people could use a lesson in: sex is about more than just visual attraction and lust and it is about more than just passion and infatuation. I won’t get into the boring details of the research here, but basically when sex is done right, at its deepest level it is about intimacy. It is about one human being connecting with another human being they love. It is a beautiful physical manifestation of two people being connected in a truly vulnerable, intimate manner because they love each other profoundly. It is bodies connecting and souls connecting. It is beautiful and rich and fulfilling and spiritual and amazing. Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together (which dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage anyway). So, in a weird way, the circumstances of our marriage allowed us to build a sexual relationship that is based on everything partners should want in their sex-life: intimacy, communication, genuine love and affection. This has resulted in us having a better sex life than most people I personally know. Most of whom are straight. Go fig.
First, what Andrew said:
The point of the gay rights movement is not to make everyone gay; it is to help everyone be themselves, to expand the possibilities of a fulfilling, loved life for more human beings. If that means some gays really want to marry women, and they are not deceiving anyone, it's totally their choice—and their right not to be mocked for it.
Agreed.
But "free to be you and me" is not the lesson anti-gay religious conservatives are going to draw from Josh Weed's case. They will hold Weed up as proof that there's no need for marriage equality or domestic partnerships or civil unions—no need to recognize same-sex couples under the law at all—because all gay people everywhere should follow Josh Weed's example. Society should encourage each of us to find an opposite-sex partner who is willing to marry us and who we can either fuck successfully while thinking about gay sex or whom we feel so strongly about that we 1. actually enjoy fucking or 2. will claim we enjoy fucking in blog posts that our opposite-sex partners help us write. Unicorn Marriages—Weed describes himself as a unicorn—will be pushed as Plan B for gays and lesbians who flunk out of ex-gay ministries.
And this is telling: Weed extols the benefits of marriage for four or five thousand words and asks people not to judge him: "My hope is that other gay people will be as accepting of my choices as they hope others would be of their choices," Weed writes. But Weed never says whether he believes gays and lesbians who make different choices—gays and lesbians who move successfully from infatuation, lust, and obsession to intimacy, love and affection (it can be done!)—should be free to marry their same-sex partners. He never says whether he believes that gay people in same-sex relationships should enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities, and social recognition, that he and his wife enjoy. (And please note the annoying way Weed's arguments force us to toss the word "choice" around in relationship to sexual orientation.) It's a telling omission.
And, finally, reading Weed's post I kept thinking to myself, "What if Weed had been raised, say, a 'devout Unitarian' instead of 'devout Mormon'? What if he didn't have to choose between the faith to which he was randomly assigned at birth and his hardwired sexual orientation? What would his life look like today?"
Religion, ladies and gentleman. It'll fuck you up. And unlike sexual orientation (in most cases), religion is always a choice. It might be a choice your parents made for you—just as your grandparents made it for them—but it's still a choice.
1
...They go into woods into bean fields they go—The Sheep Child, James Dickey
Deep into their known right hands. Dreaming of me,
They groan they wait they suffer
Themselves, they marry, they raise their kind.
2
As usual, you hit the nail on the head, Dan. I'm predicting that within 48 hours Weed will be held up as a shining example of how there's no need whatsoever for same-sex marriage or any other form of equality for LGBT people, because all you have to do is find the right person of the opposite sex who'll take you as you are while you make do.
3
In my experience, the "chemicals of infatuation" DO NOT "dwindle dramatically after the first few years of marriage." Maybe I'm just lucky.
4
First, gay my hairy straight white ass. Weed is clearly bi, because he would not have spent a decade enjoying sex with a woman if he was really 100% gay.
Second, I know a number of bi folks whose primary physical attraction is to one gender but whose primary romantic attraction is to the other. Weed may well fall into that category, and due to the manichean nature of his upbringing and religious views on sex, perceives that as being equivalent to him being gay.
Second, I know a number of bi folks whose primary physical attraction is to one gender but whose primary romantic attraction is to the other. Weed may well fall into that category, and due to the manichean nature of his upbringing and religious views on sex, perceives that as being equivalent to him being gay.
5
If you think that lust doesn't need to be involved in sex for it to be enjoyable, you have clearly never had good sex.
He might be bi, he might be a magical gay man who enjoys being married to a woman and sexing her (because...somehow...that isn't bi?), but he's not having good sex if he thinks lacking lust in the bedroom is okay.
He might be bi, he might be a magical gay man who enjoys being married to a woman and sexing her (because...somehow...that isn't bi?), but he's not having good sex if he thinks lacking lust in the bedroom is okay.
7
Isn't this essentially what went on in Ancient Greece? Men (noble men, at least) were expected to marry a woman and procreate with her, but they preferred the company (sexual and otherwise) of other men. I'm fairly sure I'm correct on this, but I don't have time to read wikipedia at the moment.
8
I think so too #7. But in any case... put a gun to my head or make me live in Utah and in either case I'll spout some dumba** philosophy for you.
10
@7, enjoyable sex and great sex are two different things. As it happens, I've never been particularly attracted to my hand, but it can still give me a good time.
11
I have no problem with him living his life however he wants to, but I wonder if he is truly as happy as he says he is with this arrangement. I would also say he is definitely bisexual, by definition...though it's none of my business, really. And this is definitely what the NOM crowd would have us all do. Hey, it works for this guy, it can work for all of you depraved homo perverts! See, it's a choice!
12
Gay, married to a woman, and living in a state that is probably the closest in the nation to having a popular mandate for gay marriage. And now this story comes out. How coincidental.
I was at a pro gay marriage fundraiser just yesterday. The main speaker noted that the key demographic both sides will be going after are women, late 30s/early 40s, married with children but not very politically oriented. Soccer moms, in other words. These people will not be motivated by civil right/liberty arguments. They will be motivated by love/compassion/personal stories. Precisely the type of story coming from Mr. Weed. As they walk into those voting booths, I can now see that critical 10% thinking "If that one guy can find lasting love with a woman, why can't the rest of them?"
Get ready, folks. This is just the first warning shot in what will be one of the bloodiest political battles this state has ever seen. And if Mr. Weed is any example, they know exactly what they're doing.
I was at a pro gay marriage fundraiser just yesterday. The main speaker noted that the key demographic both sides will be going after are women, late 30s/early 40s, married with children but not very politically oriented. Soccer moms, in other words. These people will not be motivated by civil right/liberty arguments. They will be motivated by love/compassion/personal stories. Precisely the type of story coming from Mr. Weed. As they walk into those voting booths, I can now see that critical 10% thinking "If that one guy can find lasting love with a woman, why can't the rest of them?"
Get ready, folks. This is just the first warning shot in what will be one of the bloodiest political battles this state has ever seen. And if Mr. Weed is any example, they know exactly what they're doing.
13
I would like to hear from Lolly. Interesting pet name though, don't you suck a Lolly? Or is it more like licking a Tootsie Pop?
14
Dan, on the subject of gays and religion what do you think of what this guy is doing?
http://royaloak.patch.com/announcements/…
http://royaloak.patch.com/announcements/…
15
This is a nice, compassionately bigoted attitude that manages to slip condemnation between lip-service to love. Just more "hate the sin, love the sinner" crap.
I'm sure Weed means well, but he ruins his message with:
(From point 8 of Weed's post.)
I'm sure Weed means well, but he ruins his message with:
Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction. I feel this is a very important distinction. This is true for every single person. You don’t get to choose your circumstances, but you do get to choose what you do with them.
(From point 8 of Weed's post.)
16
That was exactly my takeaway too. The right-wingers will use this as a backup to their insistence that same-sex marriage is a "special right," that this guy has the same rights as any other man - the right to marry a woman.
His church shamed him into this life. Doesn't matter if he's happy or not, he says himself that his devotion to the Mormon faith pushed him to marry a woman. It's spiritual bullying, and it's fucked up.
His church shamed him into this life. Doesn't matter if he's happy or not, he says himself that his devotion to the Mormon faith pushed him to marry a woman. It's spiritual bullying, and it's fucked up.
17
@7 Um, I guess you could use "essentially," but there is a lot of nuance and variation. This changed from century to century, and even from city-state to city-state.
Well, the fish is in the barrel, I might as well shoot it: Just another reason that Mormons have nothing to contribute to any discussion about sexuality.
Well, the fish is in the barrel, I might as well shoot it: Just another reason that Mormons have nothing to contribute to any discussion about sexuality.
18
Mr. Weed is like a left-handed person who decided to pick up a pen with is right hand. Sure, most lefties are happier writing with their left, but there's going to be the one person in however many who's fine writing with the right. We should celebrate the fact that we live in a country that allows and encourages this.
Yes, right-wingers may misuse Mr. Weed's life story, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get to talk about his experience and defend the decisions he's made. If he and his wife are both happy the way things are, then good for them AND WHY THE CRUD ARE WE BLAMING RELIGION FOR SOMEONE BEING HAPPY?
As for "happy," I think we'll have to wait and see whether this is the real deal, and it'll be a long wait. "Call no man happy until he is dead" applies here. We must not call this marriage successful until it ends (without any "I'm so miserable" letters or secret same-sex extramarital partners).
Yes, right-wingers may misuse Mr. Weed's life story, but that doesn't mean he doesn't get to talk about his experience and defend the decisions he's made. If he and his wife are both happy the way things are, then good for them AND WHY THE CRUD ARE WE BLAMING RELIGION FOR SOMEONE BEING HAPPY?
As for "happy," I think we'll have to wait and see whether this is the real deal, and it'll be a long wait. "Call no man happy until he is dead" applies here. We must not call this marriage successful until it ends (without any "I'm so miserable" letters or secret same-sex extramarital partners).
20
@12, how coincidental is right. How does his wife feel knowing that his commitment to her is based on denying what he really feels inside? I thought the point of marriage was to commit to spending the rest of your life with the one person you most want to be with? If this guy's seld-admittedly 'going through the motions' marriage deserves respect, then why wouldn't every marriage between two people who are really in love and committed deserve respect and protection?
21
Sometimes, mostly, gay people develop an authentic sexual/romantic connection with someone of the opposite sex. I think William S Burroughs described Joan Vollmer as the love of his life even though he identified as homosexual. I doubt he was faking it to stay in the good graces of the church.
22
He can have a gold star if he is truly honest with his wife and she knows that she is married to a gay man. But, he does not get a gold star for following the tenants and beliefs of his chosen religion.
23
We need more details about Mr. Weed's sex life to properly evaluate this story. By "fucking," does he mean PiV sex? Or is she a champ at fisting him? And he her?
I just have a funny feeling that if it was known just what they get up to in the bedroom, any "conservative" froth to cite them as an example would disappear quickly.
I just have a funny feeling that if it was known just what they get up to in the bedroom, any "conservative" froth to cite them as an example would disappear quickly.
24
I never trust relationships when the couple feels a need to: renew their vows (I'm talking Seal/Heidi here...not your grandparents cute 65th anniversary renewal); constantly proclaim on facebook how they have the best wife/husband eva; and now I guess I can add write a blog post about the happiness of their gay/straight marriage alliance.
That whole post just smacks of "if I say it enough and rationalize it enough, well then gosh darn it must be true." Couples that are truly in love don't need 5,000 words to justify it to the world.
I also despise that he tries to take the educational elitist route through research he dug up in grad school, which the rest of us "could use a lesson in." If you're taking out $100 k in student loan debt to justify the love in your gay/straight marriage, you've got bigger problems than the financial burden you'll be carrying the next 20 years. You don't need a peer reviewed doctoral thesis to justify your marriage; and if you do, your marriage is probably fucked.
That whole post just smacks of "if I say it enough and rationalize it enough, well then gosh darn it must be true." Couples that are truly in love don't need 5,000 words to justify it to the world.
I also despise that he tries to take the educational elitist route through research he dug up in grad school, which the rest of us "could use a lesson in." If you're taking out $100 k in student loan debt to justify the love in your gay/straight marriage, you've got bigger problems than the financial burden you'll be carrying the next 20 years. You don't need a peer reviewed doctoral thesis to justify your marriage; and if you do, your marriage is probably fucked.
25
If this is the only way to protect the sanctity of marriage, it's lost on me. I'd rather attack it on those grounds than cede the fundies the ground for the 'reverse racism' claim that they are jonesing to make.
26
He identifies as gay but his only sex partner is a woman. Personally, I can't see how you can have a "robust and healthy sex life" with someone who you're not only not physically attracted to but who isn't even a member of the sex you're attracted to.
27
@7+8 - 17 is right, it varied a lot. And the often mentioned practice of homosexuality in Greece was most commonly in the form of pederasty, and being open about being romantically attached only to men was not common, even when you were having sex with men. So, no, this Mormon guy is different. Seems like a modern invention: being out as gay, and also being married to a woman. This is new territory.
But I think this guy is a fucking idiot. I couldn't put my finger on it, but something really bothered me about him. And I think Dan got most of it. But there's something about him and his stupid situation and his stupid essay that's really hurting my brain.
But I think this guy is a fucking idiot. I couldn't put my finger on it, but something really bothered me about him. And I think Dan got most of it. But there's something about him and his stupid situation and his stupid essay that's really hurting my brain.
28
This guy is like the S.E. Cupp of homosexuality. "I'm gay, but..."
Ugh, enough!
I know it's hard to break into blogging but do we really need more phony dickheads setting up strawmen for a paycheck and an appearance on Fox or Real Time? Fuck.
Ugh, enough!
I know it's hard to break into blogging but do we really need more phony dickheads setting up strawmen for a paycheck and an appearance on Fox or Real Time? Fuck.
29
@ 21 yeah, and Lytton Strachey and Dora Carrington, or Cole Porter and Linda Thomas. Not much doubt that these were authentic connections.
I wonder, though, if those of us who have had happy marriages with those of our preferred gender would recognize that connection. "I really love you and sometimes we have sex" isn't quite the same as the embers that form after years of "I can't keep my hands off you", even if it might look the same from outside.
I wonder, though, if those of us who have had happy marriages with those of our preferred gender would recognize that connection. "I really love you and sometimes we have sex" isn't quite the same as the embers that form after years of "I can't keep my hands off you", even if it might look the same from outside.
30
@26: Exactly. If you're not attracted to women, you're not going to be able to have "enjoyable" sex exclusively with a woman. Either he's lying about having enjoyable sex or he's lying about having no sexual attraction to women. Either way, he's full of shit.
31
A gay man who marries a straight woman essential takes her off the market and essential imbalances the ratio, giving him more opportunities among males with no female mates (welcome to Seattle, dudes).
I think you and I agree bi is b.s. 99% of bi seems to be people like this guy...blocking a female and then using it as a wedge to wildcat it, say at work, with guys.
I am not crying "Agenda". No. Not just yet.
I think you and I agree bi is b.s. 99% of bi seems to be people like this guy...blocking a female and then using it as a wedge to wildcat it, say at work, with guys.
I am not crying "Agenda". No. Not just yet.
32
As much as I'd like to be as impartial on this as Sullivan et al., I can't help but agree with the doomsayers/truthers like @12. I guess it's just plain serendipitous that Weed's ten year anniversary and subsequent public coming-out-as-happily-mixed-orientation-whatever coincides with a year that a popular vote on gay marriage is occurring in WA.
Even beyond the propaganda motive, I find his post pretty sinister. It's been pointed out elsewhere since this exploded on the internet, but he's not exactly without vested interests. He works as an LDS marriage counselor specializing in "sexual addiction" and "LGBT issues." He describes this as something like 'reconciling same sex attractions with religious beliefs.' I'm going to hazard that he, like so many other gay spokesmen who have made straight life 'work,' makes his money off a variety of ex-gay therapy.
Whether or not he thinks what he does is innocuous, his rhetoric is sufficiently NOM-like that I have no choice but to not trust him. The Gallagher-like obsession with biological children, the disturbing uses of "ideal" and "choice" (not to mention the retrograde discussion of "lifestyle"): it all boils down to someone who really doesn't see 'active' gays as fully human (less than ideal) or deserving of marriage rights (marked omission, especially after jesting that a lesbian's family was "counterfeit").
All in all, this is one of the rare occasions where I would really welcome the old canard "I have gay friends," because that's also glaringly absent. I'm pretty sure that although he does a fair amount of counseling by example to gay people, he really doesn't know any. I say this simply because I personally don't really get where he's coming from. (More damningly, I as a gay man would likely never be friends with him just because he seems like such a neuter. Anyway.)
That he and his wife are happy and functional is great. That he tries to pass off that marriage, any marriage, is without its hardships and trials is not. Even worse than this is the religious zealot's insistence that it's his doctrine, not his attitude, that requires him to passive aggressively shit all over everyone else's families.
More...
Even beyond the propaganda motive, I find his post pretty sinister. It's been pointed out elsewhere since this exploded on the internet, but he's not exactly without vested interests. He works as an LDS marriage counselor specializing in "sexual addiction" and "LGBT issues." He describes this as something like 'reconciling same sex attractions with religious beliefs.' I'm going to hazard that he, like so many other gay spokesmen who have made straight life 'work,' makes his money off a variety of ex-gay therapy.
Whether or not he thinks what he does is innocuous, his rhetoric is sufficiently NOM-like that I have no choice but to not trust him. The Gallagher-like obsession with biological children, the disturbing uses of "ideal" and "choice" (not to mention the retrograde discussion of "lifestyle"): it all boils down to someone who really doesn't see 'active' gays as fully human (less than ideal) or deserving of marriage rights (marked omission, especially after jesting that a lesbian's family was "counterfeit").
All in all, this is one of the rare occasions where I would really welcome the old canard "I have gay friends," because that's also glaringly absent. I'm pretty sure that although he does a fair amount of counseling by example to gay people, he really doesn't know any. I say this simply because I personally don't really get where he's coming from. (More damningly, I as a gay man would likely never be friends with him just because he seems like such a neuter. Anyway.)
That he and his wife are happy and functional is great. That he tries to pass off that marriage, any marriage, is without its hardships and trials is not. Even worse than this is the religious zealot's insistence that it's his doctrine, not his attitude, that requires him to passive aggressively shit all over everyone else's families.
33
@25 Yeah, his account of his marriage/sexuality seems perfectly plausible to me. Relationships are weird. Human sexuality is complex. Most of the time marriages between gay men and straight women do not go well, but there are exceptions. What is important to keep in mind is that just because one gay man has found fulfillment in a heterosexual marriage doesn't mean that every homo could become the man Maggie Gallagher would like him to be if he would just try hard enough.
34
@27
This reminds me of the first time I heard/read Cupp, Brooks, Douthat, and Frum. They try to avoid tripping the bullshit detector with a sort of delicate sophistry that just ends up as a convoluted mess. By the end you're just as pissed off as you'd be at a Hannity or Krauthammer; although sometimes you wonder if they really do believe in their own "apostasy."
Then you sober up and realize nobody is that stupid.
But I think this guy is a fucking idiot. I couldn't put my finger on it, but something really bothered me about him. And I think Dan got most of it. But there's something about him and his stupid situation and his stupid essay that's really hurting my brain.
This reminds me of the first time I heard/read Cupp, Brooks, Douthat, and Frum. They try to avoid tripping the bullshit detector with a sort of delicate sophistry that just ends up as a convoluted mess. By the end you're just as pissed off as you'd be at a Hannity or Krauthammer; although sometimes you wonder if they really do believe in their own "apostasy."
Then you sober up and realize nobody is that stupid.
35
@21, Burroughs "accidentally" shot Vollmer. She died. Disclaimer: it could indeed have been an accident.
36
Now ex-Mormon Benji Schwimmer (winner of 2nd season of So You Think You Can Dance, brother of Lacey) came out a few weeks ago. The interview (on Mormon Stories) is looooooong, but the very beginning of the third section:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6RBOvYDW…
leads with him talking about going to the Mormon-sponsored Evergreen and trying to change his orientation and realizing immediately that it wasn't going to work for him. Very tellingly, he talks about meeting a straight-married, "ex"-gay who encouraged him to marry a woman, explaining that he and his "second" wife (he'd cheated so much on the first she'd left) were doing really well. Benji remembers thinking, "how many women am I expected to take down with me?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6RBOvYDW…
leads with him talking about going to the Mormon-sponsored Evergreen and trying to change his orientation and realizing immediately that it wasn't going to work for him. Very tellingly, he talks about meeting a straight-married, "ex"-gay who encouraged him to marry a woman, explaining that he and his "second" wife (he'd cheated so much on the first she'd left) were doing really well. Benji remembers thinking, "how many women am I expected to take down with me?"
37
If you're a man attracted to men, and enjoy sleeping (only) with a woman: you're bi. Not straight, not gay, bi, and just not acting on your attraction to men.
If you're a man attracted to women, and enjoy sleeping (only) with a man: you're bi. Not straight, not gay, bi, and just not acting on your attraction to women.
I know that in the brave new world of gender and sexual fluidity we should be wary of labels. We should also recognize that words are descriptors of objective reality as well as subjective perception and thus we can't make something that it ain't by asserting that our identities are wrapped up in calling it something else. We can call the cat a dog, but it's still a cat and it doesn't make one a cat-hater to call it a cat when someone else insists that it's a dog.
If you're a man attracted to women, and enjoy sleeping (only) with a man: you're bi. Not straight, not gay, bi, and just not acting on your attraction to women.
I know that in the brave new world of gender and sexual fluidity we should be wary of labels. We should also recognize that words are descriptors of objective reality as well as subjective perception and thus we can't make something that it ain't by asserting that our identities are wrapped up in calling it something else. We can call the cat a dog, but it's still a cat and it doesn't make one a cat-hater to call it a cat when someone else insists that it's a dog.
38
kudos to Xenos at 34 for nailing it: they are "try[ing] to avoid tripping the bullshit detector with a sort of delicate sophistry".
39
Man. The internet makes people instantaneous credulous simpletons.
The other more likely option here, that few seem willing to consider, is that this man is completely mental or is a fucking lying sack of shit and is making all this up.
Occam's razor, people.
The other more likely option here, that few seem willing to consider, is that this man is completely mental or is a fucking lying sack of shit and is making all this up.
Occam's razor, people.
40
@I would bet money they aren't married in 10 years... or maybe 15, if they're waiting for the kids to leave the nest.
41
@34 - yeah, I imagine him saying "I am living a complete lie and you can too" wouldn't be cross-posted on dozens of big blogs as a new and insightful view on sexuality. But that's what it boils down to, isn't it?
A very serious person with very serious views on alternative lifestyles.
A very serious person with very serious views on alternative lifestyles.
42
Note, too, that this man's story plays exactly into the religious right's trope that sex and desire and lust are all utterly unimportant, that true love and marriage and procreation are the goals.
43
@32 & @24, together, really nail it for me--32 is longish and worth reading. The creepiness of "we're writing this together BECAUSE WE ARE SO IN LOVE, EVERYONE! SEE ALL THESE SMOOGLY PICTURES!!!! + the emphasis on the need for biological children, and how he still thinks any action on same-sex attraction is sin.... A seemingly nice, thoughtful creep, but still a creep. And a creep who is now a poster child for LDS anti-gay crap AND who is giving psychotherapy to LGBT teens.
44
A good friend transitioned M-to-F ten years after marrying her (straight) wife. The wife decided to stick around. Now they identify as a lesbian couple--despite the fact that her wife is heterosexual.
I don't believe them to be "living a lie," and I'm sure as hell not going to assume the same about Mr. Weed either, no matter how uncommon his story is. No matter how DIFFERENT he is.
I don't believe them to be "living a lie," and I'm sure as hell not going to assume the same about Mr. Weed either, no matter how uncommon his story is. No matter how DIFFERENT he is.
45
He's free to define his sexuality however he sees fit.
But I have to agree with most of the other people posting here. If he's having sex with a woman (Partially depends upon WHAT they're doing. Pegging?) then he may (probably) be bi.
As a straight guy, I don't see how it would be possible to have sex with another guy on a recurring basis. Lights out. Watching porn. He's wearing a wig. Etc. That would be a joke of a "relationship".
Bullshit detector is going off.
He's bi.
He's also free to call himself anything he wants to.
But he's still bi.
But I have to agree with most of the other people posting here. If he's having sex with a woman (Partially depends upon WHAT they're doing. Pegging?) then he may (probably) be bi.
As a straight guy, I don't see how it would be possible to have sex with another guy on a recurring basis. Lights out. Watching porn. He's wearing a wig. Etc. That would be a joke of a "relationship".
Bullshit detector is going off.
He's bi.
He's also free to call himself anything he wants to.
But he's still bi.
46
37, 44 et al: the difference is, he makes it very clear that he's not attracted to women at all. Not even just to his wife. Only to men. He married a woman because his religion dictated that he must.
47
@36, "Benji remembers thinking, "how many women am I expected to take down with me?""
When you have a religion that holds women in a strange place between untouchable symbol and outright contempt, it's not surprising that the opposite-sex partners in the relationship are taken as disposable place-holders, and THEIR thoughts, feelings, and autonomy are considered subservient to keeping the men in line.
It's demeaning.
As for Weed, I'd really like to know what his wife thinks about this. She could be putting on a brave face, so that she isn't ostracised by her church community. She could be one of those who just doesn't give a darn. She could be finding other outlets for her energy, like a career or some personal passion. Or she could be like some of the partners you see on the Straight Spouse Network site, where their husbands are gay, and they're still married, and happy about it. (Read here: http://www.straightspouse.org/personalst…) If she's being forced to keep on a brave face, for the sake of not being rejected by the church, then both this man and the church are doing something unspeakably, needlessly cruel. If she is truly okay with it? Nothing to see here, move along.
At the end of the day, though, what this underscores is that marriage is NOT some kind of magical religious thing that brings in spiritual harmony. It is fundamentally a shared-property arrangement that legal adults can enter into. Think about it: were it not for the financial, legal, and tangible property aspects of the marriage, would Weed stay with his wife? Were they still dating, and he came out, would they have stayed together, or, in the absence of the financial, legal, and social (read: church) stability that the marriage provided, would they have split? I strongly suspect the latter, rather than the former.
More...
When you have a religion that holds women in a strange place between untouchable symbol and outright contempt, it's not surprising that the opposite-sex partners in the relationship are taken as disposable place-holders, and THEIR thoughts, feelings, and autonomy are considered subservient to keeping the men in line.
It's demeaning.
As for Weed, I'd really like to know what his wife thinks about this. She could be putting on a brave face, so that she isn't ostracised by her church community. She could be one of those who just doesn't give a darn. She could be finding other outlets for her energy, like a career or some personal passion. Or she could be like some of the partners you see on the Straight Spouse Network site, where their husbands are gay, and they're still married, and happy about it. (Read here: http://www.straightspouse.org/personalst…) If she's being forced to keep on a brave face, for the sake of not being rejected by the church, then both this man and the church are doing something unspeakably, needlessly cruel. If she is truly okay with it? Nothing to see here, move along.
At the end of the day, though, what this underscores is that marriage is NOT some kind of magical religious thing that brings in spiritual harmony. It is fundamentally a shared-property arrangement that legal adults can enter into. Think about it: were it not for the financial, legal, and tangible property aspects of the marriage, would Weed stay with his wife? Were they still dating, and he came out, would they have stayed together, or, in the absence of the financial, legal, and social (read: church) stability that the marriage provided, would they have split? I strongly suspect the latter, rather than the former.
48
@45, seriously? Doing a particular sex act doesn't make you gay, it's who you're doing it with AND who you WANT to be doing it with that is gay. Fisting, pegging, S&M, handjobs...yes, gay dudes do that, but so do straights, and presumably bi types, lesbians, and anybody else who is into those particular things to do when nekkid.
49
I just continue to fail at understanding how religious thinking works, in terms of sin. So you DO the right things, but you THINK the wrong things...and that's ok because Mormonism is ultimately Utilitarian? What if he squeezes his eyes shut really tight, and thinks about nubile dude bodies while hammering away (for the purpose of makin babies)? Of course, this is not taking him at his word in some ways, which is unfair, but otherwise I'm not really sure what the term "gay" means in this context. In many cultures, same sex friendships can be much deeper than we allow for here, to the point where the friends will openly profess love for each other, be (platonically) physically intimate (kisses, hand holding) and those people aren't gay. Fuck, Plato wasn't gay and he certainly banged some dudes.
Saying that every incidence of lust is basically dead in you and that you have adequate sexytimes for the baby making is different from sublimating your gay desires. The former, ok fine not a "sin". The latter? Well, I admit to reading quite a lot of Kant right now, but if being gay is "wrong" how is this okie dokie with the Mormons? It's the funhouse mirror reflection of meaning to do something bad, and accidentally doing something right. That's not morally praiseworthy.
Saying that every incidence of lust is basically dead in you and that you have adequate sexytimes for the baby making is different from sublimating your gay desires. The former, ok fine not a "sin". The latter? Well, I admit to reading quite a lot of Kant right now, but if being gay is "wrong" how is this okie dokie with the Mormons? It's the funhouse mirror reflection of meaning to do something bad, and accidentally doing something right. That's not morally praiseworthy.
50
Oh and just to be clear: I think this guy should go have hot homo sex, like now. I only hope that his wife at least has a piece on the side who loves how sexy her female bodied attributes are. Or a Hitachi.
51
yeah I know more than a few gay folks who settled down with an exception to their usual orientation. Just like I know straight folks who settled with an exception to theirs. It happens. Anyone ever see "Bob and Rose"? Based on a true story.
Anyway, the obnoxious thing here is his idea that he's somehow ascended to a higher plane of sex because he happens to be happily sexually partnered against type. He's never been a gay man married to a man, or a straight man married to a woman (or a gay woman married to a woman, or a straight woman married to a man, etc etc infinite diversity in infinite combinations), so how does he know? How can he possibly know that other people in other kinds of marriages aren't having the same kind of transcendent sex he and his wife are having? This kind of judgey special-snowflakey "you can't possibly understand" thing irks me no matter where I've found it (and same-sex couples are not immune, either).
All this said, while I find his set-up not uncommon and believable as well within the range of human diversity, his thing about having to work for sexual compatibility reminds me of nothing so much as Orson Scott Card's regrettable "hi I'm an unhappy closeted gay man" tantrums about how God wants men and women to marry, because it would be so NATURAL and EASY and AWESOME for two men to marry or two women to marry, and the WHOLE POINT of marriage is that it be DIFFICULT and BURDENSOME like everyone knows heterosexual marriage is.
Poor OSC.
Anyway, the obnoxious thing here is his idea that he's somehow ascended to a higher plane of sex because he happens to be happily sexually partnered against type. He's never been a gay man married to a man, or a straight man married to a woman (or a gay woman married to a woman, or a straight woman married to a man, etc etc infinite diversity in infinite combinations), so how does he know? How can he possibly know that other people in other kinds of marriages aren't having the same kind of transcendent sex he and his wife are having? This kind of judgey special-snowflakey "you can't possibly understand" thing irks me no matter where I've found it (and same-sex couples are not immune, either).
All this said, while I find his set-up not uncommon and believable as well within the range of human diversity, his thing about having to work for sexual compatibility reminds me of nothing so much as Orson Scott Card's regrettable "hi I'm an unhappy closeted gay man" tantrums about how God wants men and women to marry, because it would be so NATURAL and EASY and AWESOME for two men to marry or two women to marry, and the WHOLE POINT of marriage is that it be DIFFICULT and BURDENSOME like everyone knows heterosexual marriage is.
Poor OSC.
52
This has been bugging me, which is odd because usually I have no strong feelings about couples who claim to be happy. But......
Josh Weed has robbed his wife. She will never know passion - the powerful feeling of being desired by her partner. Someone aching to physically be with her. Someone to dream of kissing her, worshipping her skin, lusting after her. Say what you will, but to me, this is an essential part of the human experience. Some of the most profoundly exciting, intoxicating and memorable experiences we have are these deep erotic feelings, and she gets....a guy who fucks her because that is his religious duty.
Instead, she gets a life partner who admits, publically, that he is not physically attracted to her. If he were straight and wrote that, he would be accused of emotional violence, rightfully so.
Read what she wrote. It is depressing.
Josh Weed has robbed his wife. She will never know passion - the powerful feeling of being desired by her partner. Someone aching to physically be with her. Someone to dream of kissing her, worshipping her skin, lusting after her. Say what you will, but to me, this is an essential part of the human experience. Some of the most profoundly exciting, intoxicating and memorable experiences we have are these deep erotic feelings, and she gets....a guy who fucks her because that is his religious duty.
Instead, she gets a life partner who admits, publically, that he is not physically attracted to her. If he were straight and wrote that, he would be accused of emotional violence, rightfully so.
Read what she wrote. It is depressing.
53
@41 You know those, "if Fox News existed during [significant event]" satires? I think it's time for some "Very Serious takes on slavery/segregation/miscegenation/etc."
"Mr. Garrison would probably find a more receptive ear among job-creating Plantation owners if he weren't so shrill. But don't get me wrong, I don't think the status quo is perfect." -David Brooks ca. 1855
"Liberals claim that separate but equal is a lie, yet they never do a good job of explaining how. Given that the Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine, it's clear that Conservatives have a clearer understanding of certain fundamental truths about Western Civilization." -Ross Douthat ca. 1951
"I married a black man but I didn't need the government to affirm my relationship. Liberals don't understand how disrespectful that position feels." -S.E. Cupp ca. 1964
"Mr. Garrison would probably find a more receptive ear among job-creating Plantation owners if he weren't so shrill. But don't get me wrong, I don't think the status quo is perfect." -David Brooks ca. 1855
"Liberals claim that separate but equal is a lie, yet they never do a good job of explaining how. Given that the Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine, it's clear that Conservatives have a clearer understanding of certain fundamental truths about Western Civilization." -Ross Douthat ca. 1951
"I married a black man but I didn't need the government to affirm my relationship. Liberals don't understand how disrespectful that position feels." -S.E. Cupp ca. 1964
54
@48, etc.: What we need is a fantasy projector, so we can watch what's going on in his brainses while he's attempting an implantation with his good lady wife.
56
Lets look at this story through "Dan Savage Logic" (tm), every time a Bisexual anywhere in the world declares they are actually gay Dan holds the story up as proof that saying that it's alright to assume bisexuals are actually gay isn't biphobic.
So, we should be able to hold up this story and say that gays can marry and have sex with a woman.
So, we should be able to hold up this story and say that gays can marry and have sex with a woman.
57
Having raised my son, who is gay, as a devout Unitarian, I can say that I'm happy he'll get to experience the infatuation/obsession (which in my marriage has lasted 20+years) plus what comes later as a couple matures together.
I'm also happy that my son will not have to spend all the time and energy that Mr. Weed must spend fighting his sexuality. I don't care how happy a picture he paints, that cannot be easy or pleasant.
I'm also happy that my son will not have to spend all the time and energy that Mr. Weed must spend fighting his sexuality. I don't care how happy a picture he paints, that cannot be easy or pleasant.
58
@48
"seriously?"
Yeah, seriously.
"Doing a particular sex act doesn't make you gay, ..."
And who said that it did?
Although WANTING to have sex with a guy probably makes you at least bi if you're another guy.
And a "gay" guy who WANTS to have sex with a woman is probably closer to bi as well.
Maybe in your rush to judgment you missed the point that it might be easier for a gay guy to "have sex" with a woman if the "sex" was pegging him while he watched gay porn rather than going for the missionary position.
Since we don't know what their exact sexual proclivities are, we cannot say.
"seriously?"
Yeah, seriously.
"Doing a particular sex act doesn't make you gay, ..."
And who said that it did?
Although WANTING to have sex with a guy probably makes you at least bi if you're another guy.
And a "gay" guy who WANTS to have sex with a woman is probably closer to bi as well.
Maybe in your rush to judgment you missed the point that it might be easier for a gay guy to "have sex" with a woman if the "sex" was pegging him while he watched gay porn rather than going for the missionary position.
Since we don't know what their exact sexual proclivities are, we cannot say.
59
@50 During my unfortunate attempt at heterosexual marriage my wife made extensive use of a Hitachi.
60
@49
Fucking this.
Good luck getting genuine straight people to admit that openly. I've been saying it for years, forget who's in the White House, we are living in a conservative age. The prevalence of sex in our media serves to create this huge public/private divide that only further represses public discourse.
Saying that every incidence of lust is basically dead in you and that you have adequate sexytimes for the baby making is different from sublimating your gay desires. The former, ok fine not a "sin". The latter? Well, I admit to reading quite a lot of Kant right now, but if being gay is "wrong" how is this okie dokie with the Mormons? It's the funhouse mirror reflection of meaning to do something bad, and accidentally doing something right. That's not morally praiseworthy.
Fucking this.
Josh Weed has robbed his wife. She will never know passion - the powerful feeling of being desired by her partner. Someone aching to physically be with her. Someone to dream of kissing her, worshipping her skin, lusting after her. Say what you will, but to me, this is an essential part of the human experience. Some of the most profoundly exciting, intoxicating and memorable experiences we have are these deep erotic feelings, and she gets....a guy who fucks her because that is his religious duty.
Good luck getting genuine straight people to admit that openly. I've been saying it for years, forget who's in the White House, we are living in a conservative age. The prevalence of sex in our media serves to create this huge public/private divide that only further represses public discourse.
61
As far as I'm concerned, this gay man can marry anybody he wants.
As a gay man, all I want is the same option--and I won't be marrying a woman any time soon; my husband would object.
As a gay man, all I want is the same option--and I won't be marrying a woman any time soon; my husband would object.
62
Disclaimer: I say this as a heterosexual male who's had only one sexual partner (my wife).
Whether being gay is due to biology, choice, or something in between, and whether Mr. Weed is telling the truth about his life and orientation, or not - in the end it shouldn't matter, for anything.
We have to ask ourselves: As citizen of our world society, do we have bodily autonomy, to do as we please, how we please, when we please, with others or ourselves, provided that each actor has and has given informed consent?
If we don't, then we are likely no better than slaves, to each other and to ourselves; curtailing each other's freedom for the sake of ephemeral dogma.
Is that really how we all want to live?
Whether being gay is due to biology, choice, or something in between, and whether Mr. Weed is telling the truth about his life and orientation, or not - in the end it shouldn't matter, for anything.
We have to ask ourselves: As citizen of our world society, do we have bodily autonomy, to do as we please, how we please, when we please, with others or ourselves, provided that each actor has and has given informed consent?
If we don't, then we are likely no better than slaves, to each other and to ourselves; curtailing each other's freedom for the sake of ephemeral dogma.
Is that really how we all want to live?
63
@57, as someone who got to see loving parents of all orientations with their kids of all orientations at my former big-city UU congregation (which I greatly miss sometimes out here in the back-of-beyond), my hat is off to you.
64
@62 - None of us are arguing that Mr. Weed should divorce his wife et cetera (although some have said he should fuck dudes). HOWEVER, what we are mostly objecting to, it seems here anyways, is that Mr. Weed is choosing to broadcast his (stupid imho) beliefs to a wide audience. Not everyone can do what he is doing, which is putting himself in a position of self-denial of his sexual needs/desires. Now, say that you couldn't have sex with women (err, um, a particular woman) ever again. Would you be happy? Would you be healthy? Would you experience mental stress and a lot of angst? The answer for me is yes to all. It seems he is creating an unreasonable ideal for others who hate/resent/loathe their given sexual preference for whatever reason. An ideal that is probably unattainable for almost anybody.
TL;DR: Mr. Weed can fuck who he wants, but you should fuck who you want, not who you are expected to want.
TL;DR: Mr. Weed can fuck who he wants, but you should fuck who you want, not who you are expected to want.
65
I think I might have an easier time understanding this guy if he'd specify what he means when he says "enjoyable sex" and better explain how such a thing can exist without lust. The etymology of the word is "lust" is from Anglo-Saxon, where it meant pleasure or joy without any of the sinful connotations it's picked up in the past thousand years. To take the lust out of a sexual relationship is to take the joy as well--how can it be even remotely enjoyable to fuck a girl if you don't have any desire to fuck girls? How can you achieve real sexual intimacy without passion? Trying to create sexual attraction out of whole cloth is a depressing business--I know, I tried once--and I think that in the end all the emphasis on their happy, happy sex life might serve to drive them apart. This is conjecture, of course, since I don't know his definition of "enjoyable sex."
67
@62 Aaaaw, did the personal becoming political give you a sad?
Seriously, though, I don't think the important news here is about self-identification, orientation, or splitting hairs over nomenclature. He could call himself two-spirit cactus-souled vulcan for all I care. Nobody is going to hold a Pride celebration for him then or now.
The real point is not harassing him out of a marriage and family arrangement that works for him, but to force him into recognizing the prejudices and assumptions about LGBT people that overshadow his over-ecstatic points on marital bliss.
Seriously, though, I don't think the important news here is about self-identification, orientation, or splitting hairs over nomenclature. He could call himself two-spirit cactus-souled vulcan for all I care. Nobody is going to hold a Pride celebration for him then or now.
The real point is not harassing him out of a marriage and family arrangement that works for him, but to force him into recognizing the prejudices and assumptions about LGBT people that overshadow his over-ecstatic points on marital bliss.
68
I was ready to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is bi-trending-gay, but he doesn't hang with gay friends much so he doesn't know what a real Kinsey 6 is like, and for some weird reason chooses to round himself up. Maybe he's got a really good relationship with his fag-hag best friend (who by the way probably got herself a better husband than most straight macho Mormon men). Maybe they both have relatively low sex drives and are content.
But when I read the comment @32 that he does LGBT "counseling" for a living, my bullshitometer shot way up. Now I think the odds are much better that he's a classic self-hater, he's miserable, and he's out to make everyone else miserable too. He's rounding himself up to gay on purpose to make a political point. And didn't I read somewhere that part of the Mormon ethos is that if you aren't happy you're a bad person, and so everyone has to pretend to be happy?
But when I read the comment @32 that he does LGBT "counseling" for a living, my bullshitometer shot way up. Now I think the odds are much better that he's a classic self-hater, he's miserable, and he's out to make everyone else miserable too. He's rounding himself up to gay on purpose to make a political point. And didn't I read somewhere that part of the Mormon ethos is that if you aren't happy you're a bad person, and so everyone has to pretend to be happy?
69
@66 - Are you saying that oral sex is common for mormon couples? Their church would beg to differ
Also when I read your post I read it as "oral intimacy my ass"
Also when I read your post I read it as "oral intimacy my ass"
70
@62, the real issue is human rights. Everyone gay and straight should have an equal right to marry. That's not a side issue, that's the real issue. Weed's stunt is meant to illustrate that gays do not need the right to marry b/c they could deny their impulses and mary someone else. It's a sophisticated ruse, and the beauty is that people on the same side will attack each other. Weed apologizing and living openly in 3 or 5 years is absolutely not sophisticated.
71
The only thing I find shocking is that he thinks he is a unicorn. Gay, Morman, and married, isn't that all of them?
But seriously, I have friends who are non-religious, closeted, and straight married. All you need is to be a little lazy, a little cowardly, a little bi, and a lot of luck. A low sex drive also helps.
But seriously, I have friends who are non-religious, closeted, and straight married. All you need is to be a little lazy, a little cowardly, a little bi, and a lot of luck. A low sex drive also helps.
73
What if Will and Grace were Mormon and married each other while both were virgins?
First impression: If it works for them and they are happy, cool cool.
Second impression: This does seem to be an agenda-driven message. The timing, the wanting to "add a voice" to the global discourse and give hopeless and lonely gay people "all the information about their options available". The problem with this is that his relationship IS a unicorn; a very rare product of his and her special circumstances, beliefs and willingness and ability to make sacrifices for a shared ideal. The actual net effect of this disclosure, if taken seriously by desperate-to-avoid-being-gay gay men will be a net increase in the unhappiness of the world. Because absent very unusual circumstances, they won't be able to achieve what he has. It is likely that only a tiny percentage, perhaps so small as to be statistically significant, of gay guys who have acted on their same-sex desire will could do what this guy is doing. And those who try and fail will make themselves and others miserable.
And yes, his life story fits neatly into the "you can stop being gay and can be happy with a woman" ex-gay canard that is being used to deny gay people equality. I would grant hsi story more innocence and his "I don't judge any gay person's choice" a lot more sincerely if it came with a call for gay equality or an indication of his support for it. And in spite of his immediate disclaimer, his counterfeit family remark really bothers me. It is a significant remark, and not in a good way.
I hope his beautiful daughters don't have difficulties processing this information as it spills into their lives in conflict with their fairytale impressions.
The guy is living in a glass closet. His story is fascinating. His motives for telling it are troubling.
More...
First impression: If it works for them and they are happy, cool cool.
Second impression: This does seem to be an agenda-driven message. The timing, the wanting to "add a voice" to the global discourse and give hopeless and lonely gay people "all the information about their options available". The problem with this is that his relationship IS a unicorn; a very rare product of his and her special circumstances, beliefs and willingness and ability to make sacrifices for a shared ideal. The actual net effect of this disclosure, if taken seriously by desperate-to-avoid-being-gay gay men will be a net increase in the unhappiness of the world. Because absent very unusual circumstances, they won't be able to achieve what he has. It is likely that only a tiny percentage, perhaps so small as to be statistically significant, of gay guys who have acted on their same-sex desire will could do what this guy is doing. And those who try and fail will make themselves and others miserable.
And yes, his life story fits neatly into the "you can stop being gay and can be happy with a woman" ex-gay canard that is being used to deny gay people equality. I would grant hsi story more innocence and his "I don't judge any gay person's choice" a lot more sincerely if it came with a call for gay equality or an indication of his support for it. And in spite of his immediate disclaimer, his counterfeit family remark really bothers me. It is a significant remark, and not in a good way.
I hope his beautiful daughters don't have difficulties processing this information as it spills into their lives in conflict with their fairytale impressions.
The guy is living in a glass closet. His story is fascinating. His motives for telling it are troubling.
74
What penis doesn't like a warm, well-lubricated hole surrounded by muscles? I mean, what's not to like? I like women, I loooove to eat pussy, I prefer the company of women,but I can't imagine that I wouldn't have an orgasm if I fucked a guy's ass or he sucked me off. So, I don't find the guy's story that implausible, but I still don't think we should make people enter into hetero marriages when they want homo marriages. The only marriage anyone should have a say in is his/her own.
75
One has to take reality as it comes. The fact that, as Dan put it, the anti-gay religious conservatives will not draw the right lesson from this case does not mean that it shouldn't be discussed, and that it doesn't have consequences for our understanding of sexual orientation.
And it is not difficult to counterargue it. To claim that gays don't need same-sex marriage because all they'd have to do is look harder to find that one special woman with whom they'd share the kind of intimacy Mr Weed talks about would be like claiming that limitations are not bad, as long as you still have some (no matter how small) chance of finding what you're looking for within the specified limits. Should marriage partners for men be legally limited to wmen from Honduras? Hey, if you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find a woman in Honduras with whom you could share special intimacy. Why look elsewhere?
And it is not difficult to counterargue it. To claim that gays don't need same-sex marriage because all they'd have to do is look harder to find that one special woman with whom they'd share the kind of intimacy Mr Weed talks about would be like claiming that limitations are not bad, as long as you still have some (no matter how small) chance of finding what you're looking for within the specified limits. Should marriage partners for men be legally limited to wmen from Honduras? Hey, if you look hard enough, I'm sure you can find a woman in Honduras with whom you could share special intimacy. Why look elsewhere?
76
I skimmed the comments, so I don't know if this point has been made.
Quote from the article: And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together
So, by logical extension, does that mean that straight people should have same-sex marriages, because it will make the sex better?
Quote from the article: And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together
So, by logical extension, does that mean that straight people should have same-sex marriages, because it will make the sex better?
77
This is basically the corollary of horny straight guys receiving blowjobs from their gay friends. I suppose if those straight guys were convinced that fucking a woman would land them in a pit of fire for all eternity, they might stick to gay-provided blowjobs. Since they can only imagine what they're missing, they might even convince themselves that they're happy.
Under those circumstances, I think it would be cruel to burst that bubble.
Under those circumstances, I think it would be cruel to burst that bubble.
78
Irony explodes.
He's a Marriage and Family Therapist with a private practice in Auburn, WA (Come and see him if you would like counseling -- seriously!)
I specialize in helping individuals and couples combat addiction (both chemical and sexual/pornographic), LGBT issues, ADHD/ADD, depression, OCD, anxiety, and post traumatic stress disorder resulting from abusive situations.
Irony explodes.
79
After reading his screen again, he reminds me of the male version of Andrea Dworkin. There's something really dark and angry in his psyche that he is trying to work out through a doctoral thesis.
And like AD, he's bringing down a lot of folks with him, setting the movement back while thinking he's moving it forward.
And like AD, he's bringing down a lot of folks with him, setting the movement back while thinking he's moving it forward.
80
1) All kinds of sexual combinations are possible. Weed and his wife are consenting adults, look to be honest and open with each other, and have a functioning (even happy) family. It's probably not a common situation, but I'll take them at their word.
2) It doesn't matter how far it goes back -- most people follow the religious teachings they grew up with. There's a small group of people at the margins who will leave their religious community, but most people stick with what they grew up with. The only thing that may vary is the intensity of those beliefs and practices.
2) It doesn't matter how far it goes back -- most people follow the religious teachings they grew up with. There's a small group of people at the margins who will leave their religious community, but most people stick with what they grew up with. The only thing that may vary is the intensity of those beliefs and practices.
81
Over on Gawker this weed answered questions regarding his blog post. He stated his views on marriage equality (he's concerned that it will harm religious freedom--Hmmm, that's original) and also stated that he has never been with another man sexually. You can view his replies here (click on the "comments" tab to see his specific responses. Gawker's comment system is fucking awful.
Two commenters on Towleroad claim to know him. One states he is a "staunch liberal and advocates for Obama" another named "Shane" claims to be the gay divorced husband of Lolly's childhood best friend and Lolly was the matron of honor for his ex-wife.
There is no way this revelation now by this weed is coincidental--no matter what he claims.
Two commenters on Towleroad claim to know him. One states he is a "staunch liberal and advocates for Obama" another named "Shane" claims to be the gay divorced husband of Lolly's childhood best friend and Lolly was the matron of honor for his ex-wife.
There is no way this revelation now by this weed is coincidental--no matter what he claims.
82
"and their right not to be mocked for it."
Sorry Dan and Sully. There's this pesky document called the U.S. Constitution that allows for the mocking and downright condemnation of filth like this weed and his kind.
Sorry Dan and Sully. There's this pesky document called the U.S. Constitution that allows for the mocking and downright condemnation of filth like this weed and his kind.
83
I think he strongly implies that gays and lesbians should be allowed to be married.
If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them.
If you know and love somebody who is gay and LDS (or Christian), your job is to love and nothing more. Let go of your impulse to correct them or control them or propel them down the path you think is right for them.
84
62 if he and his wife are truly happy more power to them.
But what if they're not? What if they're lying to themselves and each other? Why if this post was done more push to a political agenda then to tell their story and ask for acceptance.
There are just too many coincidences here to make me believe that this was done with good intentions.
But what if they're not? What if they're lying to themselves and each other? Why if this post was done more push to a political agenda then to tell their story and ask for acceptance.
There are just too many coincidences here to make me believe that this was done with good intentions.
85
@81 Thanks! Ugh. Fucking Gawker. Here's what I assume is his answer to a gay marriage question:
The_Weed @Rich Juzwiak 3 days ago REPLY
I guess I can say three things: 1. I want people to feel loved and accepted. 2. I have what I consider to be legitimate fears that when marriage equality is finalized (and I think the times indicate that it is only a matter of time until that happens), there will then be religious persecution when religious institutions want to opt out of providing same-sex marriages because of their doctrines. Because this nation was founded, in part, by those seeking religious freedom, that seems rather foreboding to me. But I'm no political scientist and wouldn't claim to be. 3. Ultimately I suspect the solution would be some kind differentiation between marriage as a religious rite and civil unions as a binding legality, for everybody and not just gay people. I don't know if clean lines could be drawn though. I think we kind of messed things up in the beginning by having religious marriage and legal union so intertwined. I think that everyone should have the advantage of civil unions. I think that marriage as a religious rite should be governed by religions themselves.
Ultimately, I just want a scenario where nobody feels discriminated against. It's a complex issue. I don't know what the solution is.
86
His post makes me wonder how many "straight" people should have been in gay marriages. He talks about not being able to find what he has with Lolly elsewhere, so there must be cases of the opposite...
If being gay means you have to give things up, so does being straight.
If being gay means you have to give things up, so does being straight.
87
I disagree with Andrew. Nobody has the 'right' not to be mocked and on the rare occasions they objectively shouldn't be, such is a temporary measure to accommodate tragedy or some such.
I'm going to take Weed's story with a grain of salt until we can get some evidence one way or another he's not just a shill for the DOMA-pushers.
I'm going to take Weed's story with a grain of salt until we can get some evidence one way or another he's not just a shill for the DOMA-pushers.
90
@ 85: Honestly, I'm liberal and I take a similar stance -- take the state out of the religion, take the religion out of the state. If you want a civil union, go to the courthouse. You want a marriage, got to the church. That's not a bad stance, and it harms NO ONE.
Marriage =/= civil union, and it shouldn't. One is a legal process, the other is a religious rite.
@ Ye Other Sloggers. I can't help but be reminded of the end scene to Mona Lisa Smile. Julia Stiles character is accepted to Havard Law School, but what she wants in life is to be a wife, a mother, not a career woman. We are all fighting for the LGBTQA community to have CHOICES. In some cases, that choice is going to be antithetical to what we want them to have available. We have to respect it. It's their life, their body.
It's like a 16 year old that is pregnant. We've fought long and hard for her to have access to birth-control, abortion, and adoption. We've fought the shame associated. At the end of the day, though, we've fought for choice and if she chooses to keep that baby, then that's her choice.
Same thing here. I'd shake this man's hand.
Marriage =/= civil union, and it shouldn't. One is a legal process, the other is a religious rite.
@ Ye Other Sloggers. I can't help but be reminded of the end scene to Mona Lisa Smile. Julia Stiles character is accepted to Havard Law School, but what she wants in life is to be a wife, a mother, not a career woman. We are all fighting for the LGBTQA community to have CHOICES. In some cases, that choice is going to be antithetical to what we want them to have available. We have to respect it. It's their life, their body.
It's like a 16 year old that is pregnant. We've fought long and hard for her to have access to birth-control, abortion, and adoption. We've fought the shame associated. At the end of the day, though, we've fought for choice and if she chooses to keep that baby, then that's her choice.
Same thing here. I'd shake this man's hand.
91
@90
No offense, but nonreligious people deserve to call their legally and societally recognized romantic relationships marriage as well. And they would probably tell you they are harmed plenty by having their marriage downgraded to a civil union.
No offense, but nonreligious people deserve to call their legally and societally recognized romantic relationships marriage as well. And they would probably tell you they are harmed plenty by having their marriage downgraded to a civil union.
92
@ Alanmt -- sure "married" is also a colloquial term. But as a legal term it means people that have undergone religious ceremony. Let's not confuse the colloquial usage with the legal usage. They can CALL it whatever they like, but legally we should all have access to a civil union. We are NOT however, all entitled to whichever marriage rite we choose, that has to be at the pleasure of the church providing that service.
93
@90
"Julia Stiles character is accepted to Havard Law School, but what she wants in life is to be a wife, a mother, not a career woman."
I don't think you understand. Your analogy is BACKWARD.
So the character was accepted. Big deal. That means that SOMEONE ELSE fought to get the rules changed so that she COULD be accepted. So that she could have that CHOICE.
But this guy is saying that the choice is invalid because you don't NEED to be married to someone you love.
You just need to follow the standard male-female marriage and you'll be happy.
You don't NEED to go to Harvard if you're a woman.
You just need to stay home and be happy there.
"Julia Stiles character is accepted to Havard Law School, but what she wants in life is to be a wife, a mother, not a career woman."
I don't think you understand. Your analogy is BACKWARD.
So the character was accepted. Big deal. That means that SOMEONE ELSE fought to get the rules changed so that she COULD be accepted. So that she could have that CHOICE.
But this guy is saying that the choice is invalid because you don't NEED to be married to someone you love.
You just need to follow the standard male-female marriage and you'll be happy.
You don't NEED to go to Harvard if you're a woman.
You just need to stay home and be happy there.
94
To add to post #92: rethink this through as "hand fasting." You wouldn't run around telling people (I hope, anyway) that you were hand-fasted unless you had undergone the ceremony of hand-fasting. You wouldn't have rights to that term. Married has been, unfortunately, co-opted to mean "legally a united pair of some sort" but if I went to the court house, married my partner, I honesty wouldn't have rights to the term "marriage" any more than I would have rights to "hand fasted." I have to go to church (or other religious group) to be married, or hand-fasted, etc.
95
@ 93: That's not what the guy says. He says that marrying a woman and being an average family man was his choice. He also loves his wife (and says so several times.)
He's Julia Stiles in this analogy -- he made a choice to stay in his religious community and marry his girl, when we've fought to give him the chance (choice) to live with a gay partner, or no partner. He's made the choice most sloggers don't comprehend, and he's asking us to respect his ability to choose for himself something he knows we wouldn't think he'd choose, if he knew his options.
I'm going to respect his ability to make choices and live his life as he sees fit. He seems like a pretty decent human being. His choice to be married to a woman hurts absolutely NOBODY.
He's Julia Stiles in this analogy -- he made a choice to stay in his religious community and marry his girl, when we've fought to give him the chance (choice) to live with a gay partner, or no partner. He's made the choice most sloggers don't comprehend, and he's asking us to respect his ability to choose for himself something he knows we wouldn't think he'd choose, if he knew his options.
I'm going to respect his ability to make choices and live his life as he sees fit. He seems like a pretty decent human being. His choice to be married to a woman hurts absolutely NOBODY.
96
@95
"He's Julia Stiles in this analogy -- ..."
No. Because he did NOT turn down a marriage to the man he loved.
That option was not available to him.
Unlike the option to attend Harvard which WAS available to your Julia Stiles character.
"I'm going to respect his ability to make choices and live his life as he sees fit."
That's damn fine of you because NO ONE is saying otherwise.
In fact, that's the WHOLE POINT here.
A man married a woman.
Big surprise there. Wow! That's something you don't see every single day. He's so brave to make that "choice".
But if a man wants to marry a man ... then there's a problem.
And it goes even further than that.
He's making extraordinary claims that he is NOT backing up.
How does he KNOW that he's getting better sex than a couple who are in love?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
"He's Julia Stiles in this analogy -- ..."
No. Because he did NOT turn down a marriage to the man he loved.
That option was not available to him.
Unlike the option to attend Harvard which WAS available to your Julia Stiles character.
"I'm going to respect his ability to make choices and live his life as he sees fit."
That's damn fine of you because NO ONE is saying otherwise.
In fact, that's the WHOLE POINT here.
A man married a woman.
Big surprise there. Wow! That's something you don't see every single day. He's so brave to make that "choice".
But if a man wants to marry a man ... then there's a problem.
And it goes even further than that.
He's making extraordinary claims that he is NOT backing up.
How does he KNOW that he's getting better sex than a couple who are in love?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
97
@92 and 94: "married" does not refer specifically to couples who have undergone a religious ceremony. The type of ceremony has nothing at all to do with whether a marriage is a civil union or civil marriage; every marriage recognized by the state is in effect a civil union, because it is licensed by the state. It is the official paperwork and certain other legal requirements that matter, not the type of ceremony. If you're married in the eyes of the law you're married. Whether the powers of a given religion consider you married is completely irrelevant, and you can be considered married under the rules of your religion without being considered married in law, and vice versa.
98
Sometimes It seems that ex-Catholics have decided that all religions are crap, just because theirs was.
99
@90 et. al
Waaait, whaaaat? The "religious liberty" argument, that churches are going to be somehow compelled to perform ceremonies of which they disapprove, has been shown time and time again to be a lie and craven scare tactic. So far Catholic Churches haven't somehow been forced to marry divorcees who haven't annulled their previous marriages, nor any other religious institution compelled by the state to perform ceremonies against its beliefs, no matter how retrograde.
This is not a valid argument against gay marriage. In fact, recently religious liberty has been invoked as an argument in support of gay marriage; religious figures who actually desire to perform gay marriage ceremonies have sued or otherwise petitioned the government on those grounds.
Furthermore, you might want to research the legal differences between civil unions and marriage in the US to understand why this seemingly piddling semantic difference is so important: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marri… . It's a short, short overview, from the type of site Julia Stiles would want you to go to! Just think of it as hand-fasting with knowledge!
Waaait, whaaaat? The "religious liberty" argument, that churches are going to be somehow compelled to perform ceremonies of which they disapprove, has been shown time and time again to be a lie and craven scare tactic. So far Catholic Churches haven't somehow been forced to marry divorcees who haven't annulled their previous marriages, nor any other religious institution compelled by the state to perform ceremonies against its beliefs, no matter how retrograde.
This is not a valid argument against gay marriage. In fact, recently religious liberty has been invoked as an argument in support of gay marriage; religious figures who actually desire to perform gay marriage ceremonies have sued or otherwise petitioned the government on those grounds.
Furthermore, you might want to research the legal differences between civil unions and marriage in the US to understand why this seemingly piddling semantic difference is so important: http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marri… . It's a short, short overview, from the type of site Julia Stiles would want you to go to! Just think of it as hand-fasting with knowledge!
100
Yah yah, to ramble on what Dingo said, above... I strikes me as the marriage debate rages on how we all get tangled up in the language. I've officiated at a few weddings, & have been asked a few times recently what the difference is between legal & religious marriage. It seems clear that anti-equality advocates use the confusion between the two frequently to stir up fear.
What gay couples - like hetero couples - are asking for access for is the LEGAL state of being married.* No matter whether you marry in a church, or marry at city hall, yer not married until you file your license with the county clerk. That entitles spouses to be each other's next of kin, to inherit, to visit in the hospital, etc.
Religious marriage is different: the ceremony or ritual in church, temple, synagogue - or outdoors, wherever - that involves the faith of the couple in witnessing their union, in front of their parish/family/community/etc. This is a sacrament, & is NOT something marriage equality would guarantee to gays (nor should it, freedom of religion, etc).
You can be married at City Hall & be married, as the license is signed at the same time. But you can't be married in a church, without signing that license & submitting it. You're not legally married 'til you do.
So! Marriage equality. Married at City Hall = legal = right. Married at church = religious = rite. The right to marry, is not the "rite" of religious marriage.
Sorry so 'splainy. Been asked a lot recently. TL:DR =
http://cdn1.diggstatic.com/story/can_t_e…
What gay couples - like hetero couples - are asking for access for is the LEGAL state of being married.* No matter whether you marry in a church, or marry at city hall, yer not married until you file your license with the county clerk. That entitles spouses to be each other's next of kin, to inherit, to visit in the hospital, etc.
Religious marriage is different: the ceremony or ritual in church, temple, synagogue - or outdoors, wherever - that involves the faith of the couple in witnessing their union, in front of their parish/family/community/etc. This is a sacrament, & is NOT something marriage equality would guarantee to gays (nor should it, freedom of religion, etc).
You can be married at City Hall & be married, as the license is signed at the same time. But you can't be married in a church, without signing that license & submitting it. You're not legally married 'til you do.
So! Marriage equality. Married at City Hall = legal = right. Married at church = religious = rite. The right to marry, is not the "rite" of religious marriage.
Sorry so 'splainy. Been asked a lot recently. TL:DR =
http://cdn1.diggstatic.com/story/can_t_e…
101
* = & yes, it'd be great if we could divorce (heh) the word "married" from the legal state & just call it civil unions for all, but since "marriage" is what we call that legal union between two spouses, marriage is what has to be granted to gay & straight alike.
103
One of the greatest unintended consequences of being gay is that it serves as a genuine eye-opener to all the bullshit you get fed as a child. When you realize that much of what you were taught by authority figures about sex and relationships was wrong, it gives you the freedom to question all kinds of received wisdom, not just that about sexuality. What's sad in Josh's case is that he failed to use this opportunity to question the very absurd superstitious bullshit with which he happened to have been raised. As someone who was also gay and raised LDS, I will always be grateful that my love of guys led me to question, think about, research and discover the fraudulent nature of my religious belief, and indeed of all supernatural claims I've run across so far. Josh had an opportunity to walk out of the door of religious error but he instead chose to continue to believe the teachings of a widely discredited 19th century charlatan. The best thing that could of happened to him was to be freed by his sexuality. Instead, he found another way to stay in the closet of irrationality.
One other point. Josh is lucky to come of age in a time he did. If he had lived in Brigham Young's Deseret, or even the electroshock therapy BYU of the 1970s, he would have found a whole different, and more ugly reception to his statement. Can you imagine how someone like Cleon Skousen would have taken to Josh's statement in 1950's Utah? He'd probably be in jail. Josh is free riding on the coattails of all those who prised freedom from the iron grip of religion, including the grip of those old men in Salt Lake City, who are still trying to grasp it back. He's chosen to ally himself with an organization that still practices bigotry against those like himself. He should be on the outside, with the rest of us, throwing bricks. Lucky for you, Josh, that you found a loophole for yourself and exempted yourself from the obligations all gay people share. The rest of us will keep fighting for you, whether you continue in the bosum of your bigoted church or not.
More...
One other point. Josh is lucky to come of age in a time he did. If he had lived in Brigham Young's Deseret, or even the electroshock therapy BYU of the 1970s, he would have found a whole different, and more ugly reception to his statement. Can you imagine how someone like Cleon Skousen would have taken to Josh's statement in 1950's Utah? He'd probably be in jail. Josh is free riding on the coattails of all those who prised freedom from the iron grip of religion, including the grip of those old men in Salt Lake City, who are still trying to grasp it back. He's chosen to ally himself with an organization that still practices bigotry against those like himself. He should be on the outside, with the rest of us, throwing bricks. Lucky for you, Josh, that you found a loophole for yourself and exempted yourself from the obligations all gay people share. The rest of us will keep fighting for you, whether you continue in the bosum of your bigoted church or not.
104
@101 -- that's mostly what I'm saying as well. One is legally married (because the word has been corrupted to mean the legal union as well as the religious rite.) and one is also religiously married. They are not one and the same, and if we called the first what it really is -- a civil union, no one would get harmed. And I think that IS what it should be called, same as they have in France. And I think that should be the only thing that is valid to the state/the fed/the legal sphere.
And if people want to get married or hand fasted or whatever -- they should! It's just don't think it should be LEGALLY binding until they also have their civil union as well.
And if people want to get married or hand fasted or whatever -- they should! It's just don't think it should be LEGALLY binding until they also have their civil union as well.
105
All of these religious-freedom people have the analysis backwards. No law would or could, under the First Amendment, compel any church to perform same-sex marriages, even if every State in the Union legalized gay marriage. But churches that want to perform gay marriages and have those marriages be legally recognized under the law, can't. So, you see, fear-mongering religious-freedom zealots, if religious freedom is really what you want, then you really ought to be advocating either to keep the law and marriage completely separate, or to require the law to recognize all marriages performed by all churches, because otherwise the government recognizes only the marriages performed by some churches, not by all churches.
106
@104, the fucking legal term for marriage is "marriage!" That's the word we use, and it's not colloquial usage. All the statutes on the subject call it marriage, and the goddamn piece of paper you need to get to legalize your partnership is called a marriage license (you can tell because it says so, generally in large letters, at the top of the form). I don't understand what you mean about the "corruption" of the word--are we talking about medieval semantics here? The word exists as a legal term--that's not corruption, it's evidence of how the significance of marriage has spread well beyond religion, which is entirely natural in a semi-secular society like ours. Just because the French are satisfied with civil unions doesn't mean that Americans need to be--based on our culture, laws and customs, "civil union" is a mildly insulting term to most people, and one that is generally meant as second-best for people who aren't allowed the privilege of matrimony.
107
@104 you have it completely backwards. Marriage was originally a legal contract and then the Church got involved around the 15th century. Civil marriage is the older institution.
108
@106 Yeah, I GET THAT. It's still a corruption of the word. We need a LEGAL terms that isn't tied to a religious term and vice versa. Marriage has been co-opted by the church, civil union by the state -- lets run with that. Otherwise, we're going to continue to hang up on this issue.
109
To play devil's advocate, and I know that lots of people are going to jump on me for this, but isn't a good percentage of the male population in marriages like this, married to women they aren't sexually attracted to? And they manage to stay faithful and have sex with their wives. I look at the porn that men watch and almost all of it is very thin women under 25. I don't see any porn of overweight 40-year-old women. There are a lot of men out there married to those women, and I have to think at least some of them during sex are thinking hard (literally) about some college student they saw on the train that morning. How is what this guy doing any different?
Yes he's a douchebag for using this as a wedge issue against marriage rights, but I don't think that his sexuality is all that unusual.
Yes he's a douchebag for using this as a wedge issue against marriage rights, but I don't think that his sexuality is all that unusual.
110
To cut to the chase, couldn't someone just ask Mr. Weed how he feels about marriage equality? Perhaps his answer will surprise you, Dan.
Wonder why he felt the need to come forward with his story. Who would know that a man married to a woman is gay? I would assume (as most people would) that he is straight and leave it at that. It's almost like he's testifying.
Wonder why he felt the need to come forward with his story. Who would know that a man married to a woman is gay? I would assume (as most people would) that he is straight and leave it at that. It's almost like he's testifying.
112
@108, how is it a corruption of the word??? And why should we prescriptively change language just because law and religion have a little common ground on a topic as vast as marriage? Trying to find a new term for an institution that is incredibly old, incredibly common and incredibly important is a non-starter. In America, if anything, it's the term "civil union" that is expendable. Proponents of marriage equality want to hang onto the word "marriage" for good reasons, one of them being that "marriage" has for centuries been the term used to signify unions recognized by the state and, by extension, society as a whole. When homosexuals who want to make that commitment get told that they can have a civil union instead--just as good, but without all the emotional and cultural connotations associated with marriage--they are rightly pissed off. The word "marriage" is hugely significant to people, whether they're in favor of the institution or not, so why would you even want to find a new term? Shit, the fact that the word "marriage" has tremendous value in and of itself is the only thing people can agree on in this debate! Even if it were possible to change the word (which it's not, language doesn't work like that), a huge percentage of the population would feel robbed of something very important to them. What possible good could it do?
113
@ 104 - indeed. I agree in *theory* it'd be swell to disentangle those terms: domestic partnership/civil unions for all. But that ship has already sailed; people view civil unions as lesser than being married. People don't fall in love & say - hey babe, I think I wanna civil union you. The wanna get married! & they should be able to legally marry the partner of their choosing.
If people can get their heads around, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, they're gonna have to do the same with marriage. All legally performed marriages are marriage; church weddings, not legal marriage until paperwork is filled out. Gay marriage = guarantee of right, the right to marry. Not rite.
If people can get their heads around, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, they're gonna have to do the same with marriage. All legally performed marriages are marriage; church weddings, not legal marriage until paperwork is filled out. Gay marriage = guarantee of right, the right to marry. Not rite.
116
@109, you have a point, but those straight men were, most likely, attracted to their wives when they got married and they are attracted to women in general. That's a substantial difference.
As far as trends in porn go, never forget Rule 34: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
As far as trends in porn go, never forget Rule 34: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
117
@116 is it really? You are either sexually attracted to someone or not. Reading some of the posts that men make at male boards, it's only Viagra and a vivid active imagination that gets those wives laid at all.
118
@108 "Otherwise, we're going to continue to hang up on this issue."
No, actually, I'm not hung up at all on the issue of language. The absolute simplest solution is to open marriage to everyone. Easy, done. The only people getting "hung up" is people (like yourself, it seems) who are clinging to an imaginary conflict between religious rites and societal/legal rights & recognitions.
If you had your way, my husband and I would not be married because we are atheists. Forgive me if I take that personally. You do NOT have a right to infringe on OUR right to be married.
No, actually, I'm not hung up at all on the issue of language. The absolute simplest solution is to open marriage to everyone. Easy, done. The only people getting "hung up" is people (like yourself, it seems) who are clinging to an imaginary conflict between religious rites and societal/legal rights & recognitions.
If you had your way, my husband and I would not be married because we are atheists. Forgive me if I take that personally. You do NOT have a right to infringe on OUR right to be married.
119
There are gay guys who can have sex with women -- and even enjoy it, in some cases -- and there are gay guys who have no desire to have sex with women and are actually grossed out by the very idea of vaginas. Not all gays are the same, just like not all straights are the same.
120
My wife and I were married at city hall. We've been together for years, we're buying a house together, we're raising a family together. Anyone who insists that we're "civilly unioned" because we choose to do those things outside a church can go fuck themselves.
If you want to add religion to your marriage and family that is certainly your right, but that doesn't make the rest of us "less than."
If you want to add religion to your marriage and family that is certainly your right, but that doesn't make the rest of us "less than."
121
Sin is an action? Where is he getting that lame, cafeteria, wishy washy nonsense. Mormons are wimps. Catholics are raised on "if you would, you did". Even President Carter knew thinking about sex with other women was sinning in his heart.
I feel so sorry for his wife. Awesome self esteem booster to know that the only person you get to have sex with for the rest of your life wishes you were a dude. The most illuminating aspect of this story maybe the sexism in Mormonism that pushes marriage so hard at women that they will even accept marriage to gay dudes, instead of being single too long and risk being alone forever? Maybe she is a lesbian so their tepid sexual interest is reciprocal?
I feel so sorry for his wife. Awesome self esteem booster to know that the only person you get to have sex with for the rest of your life wishes you were a dude. The most illuminating aspect of this story maybe the sexism in Mormonism that pushes marriage so hard at women that they will even accept marriage to gay dudes, instead of being single too long and risk being alone forever? Maybe she is a lesbian so their tepid sexual interest is reciprocal?
122
Wow. I have admired you for so long, for being able to be so opened minded, and never lowering yourself to the "other side"'s level. But to say a gay man must flat out say he is for gay marriage, otherwise he is against it, goes past being closed minded and clear over to DOMA mindset of "If it's not specifically what I want, it must be against it."
123
I don't get why you all feel the need to inject your fights/fears into his blog post.
There is no "counterargument" because there is no argument to counter. The whole "does this mean straight people should only marry people of the same sex" is just forcing your bias into a conversation that never occurred.
When he says: "Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together"
He is not saying it's because he's gay or she's a female. Yes, that plays a part of it, but their relationship is a byproduct of their religion. A religion that stresses early marriage, because marrying someone you don't love is more important than having premarital sex. And young people can't be trusted not to have premarital sex, so they should just get married.
To me, all these verbal pitchforks and torches, are just as bad as "GOD HATES FAGS" signs. I think #90 hit it on the head when they said it's about the right to have choices. The fact that you don't agree with his choice, is NOT a valid reason to vilify him. In fact, it's the exact thing that you claim to be fighting against, by demonizing his post.
And even worse, to say that because he didn't say he is for gay marriage, MUST mean he is against it, is just ignorant. Again, it's the root of the position that you all claim to be fighting against.
There is no "counterargument" because there is no argument to counter. The whole "does this mean straight people should only marry people of the same sex" is just forcing your bias into a conversation that never occurred.
When he says: "Many people never get to this point in their sex lives because it requires incredible communication, trust, vulnerability, and connection. And Lolly and I have had that from day one, mostly because we weren’t distracted by the powerful chemicals of infatuation and obsession that usually bring a couple together"
He is not saying it's because he's gay or she's a female. Yes, that plays a part of it, but their relationship is a byproduct of their religion. A religion that stresses early marriage, because marrying someone you don't love is more important than having premarital sex. And young people can't be trusted not to have premarital sex, so they should just get married.
To me, all these verbal pitchforks and torches, are just as bad as "GOD HATES FAGS" signs. I think #90 hit it on the head when they said it's about the right to have choices. The fact that you don't agree with his choice, is NOT a valid reason to vilify him. In fact, it's the exact thing that you claim to be fighting against, by demonizing his post.
And even worse, to say that because he didn't say he is for gay marriage, MUST mean he is against it, is just ignorant. Again, it's the root of the position that you all claim to be fighting against.
124
Well, well. Check out his website, turns out he practices anti-gay and totally debunked "repairative therapy" on people with "questions about their sexuality". Sorry, but my Completely-Full-Of-Shit Meter has just pinged off the scale. I figured this douchebag would be shown for who he really is (another Liar for Jesus) but even I didn't think it would happen this fast.
126
I don't care what his guys sexuality is. His attempt to use his story to justify calling gay sex a sin makes him a douchebag.
128
@127 The part where he says "sin is in the action" It's pretty obvious what 'sin' he's referring to.
All I can say about this tool is adequately summed up in the words of Buzz Lightyear: "you are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity"
All I can say about this tool is adequately summed up in the words of Buzz Lightyear: "you are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity"
129
I see what you are saying, but I guess unlike bible bashers that pick and choose quotes out of the bible to fit their arguments, I don't get that message from that section. That is five words out of two very long paragraphs that go above and beyond explaining that it's ok.
I believe the bible defines gay sex as a sin. But it also defines dishonoring your parents, lust, wanting something someone else has, and many many other things as sins. It also spends way more time talking about how it's ok to sin. And your sins don't define who you are. This is the message I took from that section.
I may be guilty of what I am accusing most on the board of, by seeing only what I want to see in this. But at least I am not seeing what I want to see in spite of its absence. Which is what I fear the majority of these comments, and this post, are trending towards.
I believe the bible defines gay sex as a sin. But it also defines dishonoring your parents, lust, wanting something someone else has, and many many other things as sins. It also spends way more time talking about how it's ok to sin. And your sins don't define who you are. This is the message I took from that section.
I may be guilty of what I am accusing most on the board of, by seeing only what I want to see in this. But at least I am not seeing what I want to see in spite of its absence. Which is what I fear the majority of these comments, and this post, are trending towards.
130
I like what he has to say about intimacy and connection. I also think he has to go somewhere in his head if he is not really attracted to women but having sex with one. I can't help but think about the penguins here... hell, when does drive just push you to jump anything, even if it is dead?
131
I like what he has to say about intimacy. But I can't help and think about the penguins... when does drive override the object of one's affection allowing a being to even f*#k a dead being? And let's face it... he has to be somewhere else in his head if he is to be aroused to orgasm... by the very fact that he is engaged with a woman on a regular basis on whatever heart level he wants to define - he can't be anything but bisexual - but actually can he be attracted to men, not be engaging in sex with them and still be considered bi? or is he heterosexual by definition - what's in his brain or desire that is not acted is just "here-say" ....the proof is in the pudding
132
His post was very cleverly worded to not directly say he was against gay marriage or that acting on gay sexual desire is a sin, but he did imply it strongly.
"I believe the doctrine of the Mormon Church is true. One of the key doctrines of the church is that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” "
That, translated into non Mormon English, means he is against same-sex marriage. The Mormon church teaches that marriage is only acceptable between a man and a woman. To believe in the Church's doctrine on marriage is to be against same-sex marriage. There really is no way around that. He's not using the exact words, "I'm against same-sex marriage". But he is describing what he believe in by citing a doctrinal position on marriage, and that position includes opposition to same-sex marriage.
He aslo said:
"Being gay does not mean you are a sinner or that you are evil. Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction. I feel this is a very important distinction. This is true for every single person. You don’t get to choose your circumstances, but you do get to choose what you do with them."
Again, very cleverly worded so that he doesn't come out and say that being gay isn't a sin, but if you act on being gay it is a sin, but that is clearly what he means.
And @129, yes, the Bible says many things are a sin, as Weed is also implying in his comments. I don't care. Just as I don't care when Christians claim it's OK for them to call others sinners since they call themselves sinners too. They can call themselves what ever they want, that doesn't make it not an insult when they call others that, and they can call dusting your house a sin, it doesn't change the fact that calling someone else's most important and significant relationships sinful is an insult.
And they can do that if they want. They have that right. But they don't have the right to be free from criticism when the people they insult treat them in kind.
More...
"I believe the doctrine of the Mormon Church is true. One of the key doctrines of the church is that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” "
That, translated into non Mormon English, means he is against same-sex marriage. The Mormon church teaches that marriage is only acceptable between a man and a woman. To believe in the Church's doctrine on marriage is to be against same-sex marriage. There really is no way around that. He's not using the exact words, "I'm against same-sex marriage". But he is describing what he believe in by citing a doctrinal position on marriage, and that position includes opposition to same-sex marriage.
He aslo said:
"Being gay does not mean you are a sinner or that you are evil. Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction. I feel this is a very important distinction. This is true for every single person. You don’t get to choose your circumstances, but you do get to choose what you do with them."
Again, very cleverly worded so that he doesn't come out and say that being gay isn't a sin, but if you act on being gay it is a sin, but that is clearly what he means.
And @129, yes, the Bible says many things are a sin, as Weed is also implying in his comments. I don't care. Just as I don't care when Christians claim it's OK for them to call others sinners since they call themselves sinners too. They can call themselves what ever they want, that doesn't make it not an insult when they call others that, and they can call dusting your house a sin, it doesn't change the fact that calling someone else's most important and significant relationships sinful is an insult.
And they can do that if they want. They have that right. But they don't have the right to be free from criticism when the people they insult treat them in kind.
133
So, if gay men marry women, those bad Darth Vader conservatives will point to them and say that every body should just conform? Why can't I marry someone just for companionship - lots of those bad Darth Vader conservatives do. Openly Gay men and women make those bad Darth Vader conservatives feel threatened in their closet. Just listen to their reasons for being against same sex marriage. What I and those bad Darth Vader conservatives find hard to comprehend is if homosexuality is so against God's plan, why HE doesn't smite them and then smote them. Everyone in panhandle Florida knows that Hurricane Dennis came ashore where it did because the local film society had a showing of 'Brokeback Mountain' shortly before it changed course. I won't be voting for Romney because he isn't Mormon enough. Why doesn't he take a second wife so that he can declare that he is twice as hetero as Obama?
134
Gay men should not marry straight women because that might give fuel to those bad Darth Vader conservatives' fires. Same sex marriage makes those bad Darth Vader conservatives very uncomfortable with themselves. This is this why so many bad Darth Vader conservative closet Queans are married. It's for the best. Every body should just get married to someone of the opposite sex and then all those chicken coop conservatives won't feel uncomfortable and would know that all is right in God's world. Why can't a straight guy marry a gay guy just for the companionship? Because everyone is so accustomed to being in a pigeon hole with a legible label. You are all alike in your mindset but you don't know it. Whatever happened to the ideal of a full-blooded man? If God hates homosexuals so much, why aren't they smitten and smotted. After all, 'everybody' in panhandle Florida knows that Hurricane Dennis changed course to come ashore where a local film society had shown 'Brokeback Mountain' a short time before. I guess not that many people know that the bible is an old jewish necromancy manual with all the effective curses and spells edited out. I won't be voting for Romney because he isn't Mormon enough. He should take a second wife to prove that he is twice as hetero as Obama. After all, Obama likes music.
135
@4: It's easy. He's fucking her in the ass while dreaming about doing it to some 18 year old boy.
136
As a practicing Mormon woman, this mixed-orientation-marriage as the new "cure" for the homos is just complete bullshit. "It's okay that you're having gay thoughts, Elder, just so long as you never ACT upon them!" What it serves to do is to completely erase and minimize straight Mormon women's sexuality (lesbian Mormons? they exist, but they're pretty much invisible). There's this absurd virgin/whore duality set up, which is craziness, because most Mormon women I know are as horny as any others, and probably more so. If you're going to commit to a guy, not for this life, but for all of conceivable time, he'd better think you are so damned sexy that there is no way he could NOT be in complete lust with you and want to fuck your brains out. I have no problem with Mormons saying that needs to be in the context of a committed marriage. FINE. But don't make me be the cure to some gay-ass dude with his jazz hands and lisp and BYU Ballroom Dance pedigree when I WANT A STRAIGHT MAN WHO WILL LOVE *AND* LUST AFTER ME. I think it's a sham to hold up a social construct, and I really admire my great-uncle, who got his gay Mormon ass out to San Francisco, has lived with one partner since the '70s, and never looked back.
It's very misogynistic to expect straight women to marry someone who would rather be fucking dudes, period. If a woman wants to get into such an arrangement, eyes wide open, for whatever reasons (cf Cole Porter's wife, who had been burned by an abusive straight freak, and hey it was Cole Porter), whatever. But Mormon women are the most sexually naive on the planet, I would know.
It's very misogynistic to expect straight women to marry someone who would rather be fucking dudes, period. If a woman wants to get into such an arrangement, eyes wide open, for whatever reasons (cf Cole Porter's wife, who had been burned by an abusive straight freak, and hey it was Cole Porter), whatever. But Mormon women are the most sexually naive on the planet, I would know.
137
Conservatists say that marriage is between a man and a woman. They never said between a man and a woman in love.
138
Here is a different perspective I came across. The Mormon ex-wife of a gay (now ex) Morman man, and how her experience differed greatly from that of the Weeds'.
http://cedarpocket.wordpress.com/2012/06…
http://cedarpocket.wordpress.com/2012/06…
139
Dug up from comments posted in the blog #138 posted (I found the blog on my own, and didn't read much of the last 60 comments here, forgive me if I'm repeating!)
"....he makes his living off of teaching kids to reject their natural desires to act on homosexual feelings.
Josh Weed is an “ex-gay” therapist, primarily for for children (http://joshuaweedcounseling.blogspot.com…). He is heavily involved with an ex-gay organization called LifeSTAR (http://www.lifestarwashington.com/staff.…). Check out this “ex-gay Mormon’s” blog, in which he describes his experiences in the 12 step programs at LifeSTAR: http://penitance.wordpress.com/tag/lifes….
LifeSTAR is also an organization that frequently sends speakers to Utah-based Evergreen International (http://evergreeninternational.org/Speake…). Evergreen International is a notorious ex-gay “reparative therapy” outfit that was “outed” (so to speak) in the 1980′s for doing electroshock therapy on the genitals of gay men, while forcing them to watch gay porn.
So called “reparative therapy” is widely criticized as having direct connections to depression and suicide. The practice is well on its way to being banned in California (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/californ…).
Why does Josh Weed’s blog post fail to mention his professional background as an ex-gay reparative therapist? Don’t you think it is relevant to understanding his perspective? I sure do."
This blog post of his was to make a political statement. He may truly love his wife; there are plenty (as mentioned above) that have a certain sexual orientation, but make (and sometimes marry) the few exceptions to their rules. Maybe he doesn't have lust for her, maybe he does. I'm not about to videotape their sex to ascertain for myself.
However, he clearly believes that being gay is not good, and that he is expected to fight his nature to be granted a passage to heaven. So he is likely counseling children and teens and questioning adults the same way.
He lives in WA now, not UT. While I wish all the kids in UT growing up under the myopic view of Mormonism could be saved, I hope that Weed's neighbors in WA can be loud and loving enough to help his patients see that they do NOT need reparative therapy, they don't need to try to pray away the gay, and they certainly don't need to look to this man as a role model.
More...
"....he makes his living off of teaching kids to reject their natural desires to act on homosexual feelings.
Josh Weed is an “ex-gay” therapist, primarily for for children (http://joshuaweedcounseling.blogspot.com…). He is heavily involved with an ex-gay organization called LifeSTAR (http://www.lifestarwashington.com/staff.…). Check out this “ex-gay Mormon’s” blog, in which he describes his experiences in the 12 step programs at LifeSTAR: http://penitance.wordpress.com/tag/lifes….
LifeSTAR is also an organization that frequently sends speakers to Utah-based Evergreen International (http://evergreeninternational.org/Speake…). Evergreen International is a notorious ex-gay “reparative therapy” outfit that was “outed” (so to speak) in the 1980′s for doing electroshock therapy on the genitals of gay men, while forcing them to watch gay porn.
So called “reparative therapy” is widely criticized as having direct connections to depression and suicide. The practice is well on its way to being banned in California (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/californ…).
Why does Josh Weed’s blog post fail to mention his professional background as an ex-gay reparative therapist? Don’t you think it is relevant to understanding his perspective? I sure do."
This blog post of his was to make a political statement. He may truly love his wife; there are plenty (as mentioned above) that have a certain sexual orientation, but make (and sometimes marry) the few exceptions to their rules. Maybe he doesn't have lust for her, maybe he does. I'm not about to videotape their sex to ascertain for myself.
However, he clearly believes that being gay is not good, and that he is expected to fight his nature to be granted a passage to heaven. So he is likely counseling children and teens and questioning adults the same way.
He lives in WA now, not UT. While I wish all the kids in UT growing up under the myopic view of Mormonism could be saved, I hope that Weed's neighbors in WA can be loud and loving enough to help his patients see that they do NOT need reparative therapy, they don't need to try to pray away the gay, and they certainly don't need to look to this man as a role model.
140
Did anyone else notice how he says that his marriage was not muddled by lust, but that his wife is straight? What kind of weird statement is that? Only male sexuality is relevant? Women don't/shouldn't lust? Or does she just find him physically revolting?
141
I'll tell you what's revolting is getting into a relationship with someone who didn't bother to tell you what their sexual orientation is. The man was 48 years old when we married (his fourth, my third) and so I'm pretty sure he knew what his sexual orientation is. Basically he pulled out just enough di*# to convince me he was straight and as soon as the "I do's" were said sex between us went out the door. My dumb ass thought he was having affairs with women, but alas the real loves of his life have shown themselves and he is still denying it is so. I waited 11 years to marry again and this is what I got. So for any gay or bi person who might read this, make real sure you deal with your sexuality before you get into any relationship, straight, gay or bi. Based on the statistics I've read, this happens to people more than I realized. I have been so lonely, so isolated from real human emotion and touch for so long now, I'm not sure I can ever come back to life emotionally. If you're gay or bi, stand up for that right no matter what it costs you and do it with honesty. Don't hide within the heterosexual world. It's not fair to waste someone's life, their emotions, their very soul by pretending to be something you are not. I don't want to even think how my husband may have risked my health before the sex ended. From here forward how can I even think about getting involved with anyone else for fear I may jeopardize their health. So I'm 55 and my sexual destiny has been decided for me without my consent-celibacy. It's been almost 4 years since he has touched me sexually and not much before that. I'm not one to cheat so I'm just existing not living really and certainly not loving. He's taken me for the financial ride of my life as well, so divorce at this point isn't even an option. So while many gay and bi people are out there professing all the rights they want, remember that heterosexuals want our rights protected and not infringed upon either. So live life honestly.
More...
In an effort to keep
the
discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this item is
available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (141) RSS