Jump to content

Menu

TLC's My Husband's Not Gay


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Women can be sealed to multiple partners as well. It is very rare and often requires that the woman and her husbands be deceased.

Women are often sealed to multiple husbands in proxy sealings for the dead. The g. grandmother I was named for has been sealed to each of her six husbands, some multiple times. I figure they can work things out amongst themselves ;)

 

She actually was sealed during her lifetime to one deceased husband, with her then current husband acting as proxy. The same day she acted as proxy while he was sealed to a deceased wife. I can only imagine that must have been a very tender event for both of them, and personally I think all the other sealings are likely irrelevant since it would appear she already made her choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 322
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What does SSA even mean, not what the acronym means but what is it?

 

It seems like a Christian made up term? Are they saying they are bi or are they saying they are only attracted to the same sex but they don't like the "gay" word so they are using something different?

 

If they are saying their husbands are not gay then how are they not gay?

 

I am not going to watch the show.

 

This show sounds horrifically offensive.

I think it expresses a somewhat different perception--saying "I am gay" seems to indicate this is a strongly defining characteristic of one's person. Saying "I experience same sex attraction" frames things more in terms of ones circumstances rather than ones self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does SSA even mean, not what the acronym means but what is it?

 

It seems like a Christian made up term? Are they saying they are bi or are they saying they are only attracted to the same sex but they don't like the "gay" word so they are using something different?

 

If they are saying their husbands are not gay then how are they not gay?

 

I am not going to watch the show.

 

This show sounds horrifically offensive.

In my head, the distinction would be that someone who says she is "SSA" has not acted on the attraction. Whereas, defining oneself as "gay" would mean one has felt that attraction and acted on it.

 

But I could be wrong.

 

ETA: With the way I see it, being "SSA" would not be "gay" in the sense of the men on this show (which I have not seen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does SSA even mean, not what the acronym means but what is it?

 

It seems like a Christian made up term? Are they saying they are bi or are they saying they are only attracted to the same sex but they don't like the "gay" word so they are using something different?

When I was a Christian, I understood (and used) the term to reflect the idea that sexual attraction is a kind of human development. To be attracted to someone of the same gender meant that development was skewed in some way, for whatever reason, but it was essentially a developmental problem that ideally could be overcome. At least, it could be addressed as a handicap. I understood (and used) it to negate the idea that sexual behavior is anything but the binary construct as understood by my church. In other words, to make a long story short, I understood (and used) the term to reflect the idea that no one is born gay, it isn't natural, let's not pretend it is.

 

If they are saying their husbands are not gay then how are they not gay?

Yeah, they're not gay, they just have a natural sexual and romantic attraction to other men. In a totally straight way. 0.o

 

I am not going to watch the show.

 

This show sounds horrifically offensive.

No kidding. And cruel. Just plain mean. It's like this show could be called, "My husband gets boners for men, but no homo."

 

Really, really offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a Christian, I understood (and used) the term to reflect the idea that sexual attraction is a kind of human development. To be attracted to someone of the same gender meant that development was skewed in some way, for whatever reason, but it was essentially a developmental problem that ideally could be overcome. At least, it could be addressed as a handicap. I understood (and used) it to negate the idea that sexual behavior is anything but the binary construct as understood by my church. In other words, to make a long story short, I understood (and used) the term to reflect the idea that no one is born gay, it isn't natural, let's not pretend it is.

 

Yeah, they're not gay, they just have a natural sexual and romantic attraction to other men. In a totally straight way. 0.o

 

No kidding. And cruel. Just plain mean. It's like this show could be called, "My husband gets boners for men, but no homo."

 

Really, really offensive.

 

I see.

 

That is what it seemed like to me.

 

I have gone from  hating TLC a bit to hating TLC a lot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Rolling Stone has an article regarding this issue

 

4 Reasons TLC’s 'My Husband’s Not Gay' is Dangerous for LGBT People

 

 

Attempting to change your innate sexual orientation has proven to heighten depression, anxiety and suicide attempts. In fact, the American Psychological Association has denounced the practice of reparative therapy. Despite that, it's now being promoted by this special on a platform that brings in millions of viewers. These men use the same verbiage and framework that's been taught by decades by those in the so-called "ex-gay" movement. Using words like "same-sex attracted" in lieu of saying one is gay is ex-gay training 101. The show will most likely avoid using the term "reparative therapy" as it's become known for being deeply harmful. But whether it's explicitly said or not, that's what this show is about. 

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/4-reasons-tlc-s-my-husband-s-not-gay-is-dangerous-for-lgbt-people-20150109

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the whole thread because he topic is just a little painful for me. However, this is pretty much exactly what my dad did. I'll give youa sneak peak on how this kind of thing can often play out.

 

My parents married in 1973 and had three kids over the next 10 years, I'm the middle child. In 1973, being from a tiny town in rural Northern California, there were no known gay people, but my dad knew he was different, he even told my mom on their way to their first Air Force duty station. She told him it was a phase or something and they went about their lives until 1985 or so, when my dad told her again, she left for a time but my dad hated being away from his family so he promised to "get help" and fix himself, so they could live happily ever after. Fast forward a couple years and we move to a country in Central America, where he meets a man, he starts a 3 year long affair. We move back to the states and about a year later my dad comes out to me and my older sibling and leaves. He then decides he wants to be free from responsibility and pretty much completely abandons us for the next 15 years. Only when his free, partying lifestyle made him terminally ill did he come back into our lives in a meaningful way.

 

He was around on and off, but we always took a back seat to his social life. We lived in the same town for quite awhile and would only see him once or twice a year. He didn't come to my wedding or even remember I got married. He wasn't there in any way, refused to pay child support, refused to "babysit" us for a weekend so my mom could have a break. So many years of pretending made him a completely different, selfish person, when he was not longer able to keep up the pretense.

 

I beleive his abandonment had a lot to do with guilt, and he covered his guilt with sex and drugs. He still apologizes regularly even though we've all forgiven him. My parents actually live together again and my mom takes care of him because he's very unwell. They had an amazing marriage for 17 years, no major issues at all, they loved (and still do) each other very much, and that still couldn't change him.

 

Hiding or denying who you are has dire consequences for everyone involved. No good can come from this and shame on TLC for promoting it. It breaks my heart and is obviously something I will never watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women can be sealed to multiple partners as well. It is very rare and often requires that the woman and her husbands be deceased.

Yes, I mentioned up thread that deceased women can be sealed to all deceased legal spouses. Living women cannot be sealed to all of their legal husbands (living or dead). Living men can be sealed to all their legal wives (living or dead).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is very true. Religious beliefs can inspire and strengthen people to overcome all kinds of hurtles. The sad thing is, this particular hurtle originates within the church. It's like the church has cut the individual with a knife, and then comes in to comfort them with a bandage and a hug. I think younger generations are increasingly recognizing this component of the church, and are rejecting it because they don't buy the lines their parents and grandparents bought. I think that's fantastic. I think shows like this (which really should be called, "My Husband Is Obviously Gay But We're Pretending That Doesn't Matter") will compel church leaders to discover changes in divine revelation pretty quickly.

 

The difference is, the only reason they can't be now is because of a rule instituted by the church itself. This isn't a matter of not finding a suitable mate. This is a matter of the church directly rejecting one component of human behavior that is increasingly understood not to be problematic in any practical or spiritual way. A church that works to have an image of being "hip" and "fun" can't carry on homophobic and bigoted ideologies for long. The younger generation won't be interested when they and their loved ones wrestle with what is increasingly understood as an unnecessary struggle. As marriage is (or at least was, right?) one of the prerequisites for the highest level of celestial reward, Mormons will be seriously considering whether or not the church of their parents and grandparents can be trusted with such mysterious information if they can't be trusted with this one very important, increasingly obvious concept.

This is (I hope) ridiculous to state that church leaders will "discover changes in divine revelation pretty quickly" in order to keep the younger people who wish to engage in sexual activity outside religiously permissible behavior.  Will some always do it anyway?  Sure.  Should the church support a "love the one you're with" mentality in order to placate the world's values?  No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it expresses a somewhat different perception--saying "I am gay" seems to indicate this is a strongly defining characteristic of one's person. Saying "I experience same sex attraction" frames things more in terms of ones circumstances rather than ones self.

I think it is more descriptive and less about labeling.

 

It's like saying, "I experience attraction to alcohol (Or maybe that might be said, "I seem to want it more than my friends") " instead of "I am an alcoholic."   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recognize those charts, but the chapter was called the 15 minute female orgasm, and it was in Tim Ferriss' 4 Hour Body book.  Starting on page 226.   http://www.amazon.com/The-4-Hour-Body-Incredible-Superhuman/dp/030746363X/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1421264867&sr=8-1

 

 

Is that the guy who says you should take ice baths to lose weight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is (I hope) ridiculous to state that church leaders will "discover changes in divine revelation pretty quickly" in order to keep the younger people who wish to engage in sexual activity outside religiously permissible behavior.  Will some always do it anyway?  Sure.  Should the church support a "love the one you're with" mentality in order to placate the world's values?  No.

 

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. All churches, and all religions have done this. Usually it's informal, not guided by any one person or event, but a general evolution inspired by changes in social values. Mormon theology includes a concept of continuing revelation, so announcing new changes isn't considered ridiculous. It's part of God's Plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would seriously crack me up if someone said the above with a straight face to me. I'd be like 'No, you're an alcoholic. In denial.'

 

Same with dd. 'Mom, I'm SSA.' 'Oh honey, that means you're a lesbian!'

 

Luckily, dd has never been indoctrinated with SSA b/s.

 

If she decided down the track she wanted to play happy families with a bloke, with his full knowledge and consent, I'd be fine with it. But only because I know she wouldn't be doing it because 'SSA'. Which is just a thing some churches made up,

I disagree.   

 

Some are predisposed to have problems with alcohol, as it is more of a potential attraction for them than for others, but that doesn't mean they have to be an alcoholic.  That is the result of a thousand choices toward that end.   

 

SSA is merely descriptive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of being gay is being attracted to the same sex. It is some bizarre form of whitewashing (straight washing?) to claim that you are not gay if you don't participate in sexual activity with the same sex. It's like claiming you aren't black, if you don't listen to rap or me claiming I'm not NA because I don't live in a tipi. If some gay (or possibly bi) people want to marry people of the same sex and/or never marry or whatever, then that is a personal decision. But, I disagree with one descriptor being "bad" and another as "not so bad" when they mean the same thing. Being gay doesn't even mean you've ever had sex. It is an attempt to make the word gay some kind of scarlet letter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. All churches, and all religions have done this. Usually it's informal, not guided by any one person or event, but a general evolution inspired by changes in social values. Mormon theology includes a concept of continuing revelation, so announcing new changes isn't considered ridiculous. It's part of God's Plan.

All moral principles that were ever true still are, and that will never change. 

 

It has always been, and will always be wrong to steal, murder, covet, bear false witness, commit adultery or sexual immorality, lie, have other "gods" before God, not honor your parents, not provide for your family, and a few other things that are pretty clearly designated as "wrong" - in all times and all places.   

Cultural practices change though, over time.   Circumcising is not a requirement.  You don't have to cover your head to pray, or wear certain fabrics, or do certain ritual practices today or other similar things.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition of being gay is being attracted to the same sex. It is some bizarre form of whitewashing (straight washing?) to claim that you are not gay if you don't participate in sexual activity with the same sex. It's like claiming you aren't black, if you don't listen to rap or me claiming I'm not NA because I don't live in a tipi. If some gay (or possibly bi) people want to marry people of the same sex and/or never marry or whatever, then that is a personal decision. But, I disagree with one descriptor being "bad" and another as "not so bad" when they mean the same thing. Being gay doesn't even mean you've ever had sex. It is an attempt to make the word gay some kind of scarlet letter.

Exactly. Organizations like North Star (which takes its cues on language from the LDS church) use SSA because in its members opinion "gay" means something like "wild and crazy homosexual behavior." 'Cause all gay people love orgies, aren't monogamous, and hook up with anyone without any kind of emotional attachment or commitment. That's the "gay lifestyle," obviously. @@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All moral principles that were ever true still are, and that will never change.

 

It has always been, and will always be wrong to steal, murder, covet, bear false witness, commit adultery or sexual immorality, lie, have other "gods" before God, not honor your parents, not provide for your family, and a few other things that are pretty clearly designated as "wrong" - in all times and all places.

Cultural practices change though, over time. Circumcising is not a requirement. You don't have to cover your head to pray, or wear certain fabrics, or do certain ritual practices today or other similar things.

Definitions on what constitute things like "sexual immorality" or "honoring your parents" DO change.

 

And some people believe those cultural practices are required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitions on what constitute things like "sexual immorality" or "honoring your parents" DO change.

 

And some people believe those cultural practices are required.

No, they don't.  Not biblically, and that was what I was addressing (Yes, I realize that Jews still circumcize and am not addressing that - but scripturally, it is not required for the Christian believer.  Fine if you do or don't). 

 

Sexual immorality and honoring parents do not change, though the specific practice might change.  Some time ago, you might have been waiting onMom/Grandma hand and foot in your own home, whereas today, you catch up with her between her bingo nights, by stopping by with a cake. 

Only the world says that sexual immorality now means whatever you want it to mean, when it actually means engaging in sex (or even prurient interest, with all that Jesus said, about even looking at a woman with lust) outside biblical marriage. 

 

In the culture, heck yeah...it changes every week.  Whatever anyone wants to do today must be ok, but we go even farther.  It must not only be ok for the person who wants to do it, but today, that person feels free to compel others into public affirmation that it is ok, which is just whacked.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All moral principles that were ever true still are, and that will never change.

This is a factually impossible statement to challenge or defend. One cannot identify, much less define a "true moral principle." The most one can do is define their opinion, or socially acceptable moral principles. These do change, and the evidence for that is found throughout the historical record.

 

It has always been, and will always be wrong to steal, murder, covet, bear false witness, commit adultery or sexual immorality, lie, have other "gods" before God, not honor your parents, not provide for your family, and a few other things that are pretty clearly designated as "wrong" - in all times and all places.

Except when it isn't. This historical record will show all kinds of examples of that.

 

Cultural practices change though, over time.   Circumcising is not a requirement.  You don't have to cover your head to pray, or wear certain fabrics, or do certain ritual practices today or other similar things.

I understand this is your opinion. I assume (correctly, I think) you recognize this opinion isn't universal. If we're going to discuss this concept, the merits of any claim would be measured against your own beliefs. That conversation holds no interest for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would seriously crack me up if someone said the above with a straight face to me. I'd be like 'No, you're an alcoholic. In denial.'

 

Same with dd. 'Mom, I'm SSA.' 'Oh honey, that means you're a lesbian!'

 

Luckily, dd has never been indoctrinated with SSA b/s.

 

If she decided down the track she wanted to play happy families with a bloke, with his full knowledge and consent, I'd be fine with it. But only because I know she wouldn't be doing it because 'SSA'. Which is just a thing some churches made up,

So if I told you I found women attractive and exciting you would immediately label me lesbian whether or not I had adopted that title for myself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I told you I found women attractive and exciting you would immediately label me lesbian whether or not I had adopted that title for myself?

If a woman is sexually attracted to women and not to men, by the objective definition that woman is a lesbian.

 

It's a description. It doesn't have to a label.

 

I have green eyes. I don't say "my eyes are beyond color" or describe myself as having GUCE (Gorgeous Unusually Colored Eyes).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a woman is sexually attracted to women and not to men, by the objective definition that woman is a lesbian.

 

It's a description. It doesn't have to a label.

 

I have green eyes. I don't say "my eyes are beyond color" or describe myself as having GUCE (Gorgeous Unusually Colored Eyes).

That's like saying that autism is not a label, just a description. It might carry a description with it, but it's a label too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I told you I found women attractive and exciting you would immediately label me lesbian whether or not I had adopted that title for myself?

 

Yes. But I wouldn't voice it to you if you didn't like to use that particular lexical item.

 

While the definition of "lesbian" is a woman sexually attracted to other women and not men, women who are sexually attracted to other women and not men are lesbians. It's a word with a definition, not a value judgement!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's like saying that autism is not a label, just a description. It might carry a description with it, but it's a label too.

Autism is a neurological condition. If one meets the clinical markers for autism, one has autism regardless of if they are diagnosed or not.

 

If I refused "to label my son with autism", he would STILL have autism no matter how much I tried to convince myself he didn't. So this was a bad example for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow this thread has turned weird.

 

Ssa is offensive to people who want the description gay to not be negative. Is that correct?

 

But gay is offensive to people who feel it implies ( rightly or wrongly) that said person is engaging in homosexual activity. Correct?

 

The show on TLC is tasteless and exploitative....I think most of us will agree on that. Which brings me to ....whatever happened to personal dignity? How about if you have made a decision to marry opposite sex even though you have ssa you suck it up and honor your vow. Or if you lied to your mate about it and mate now wants free of you graciously make that easy for all.

 

If people want to believe acting on homosexual urges is ok, then that is what they are going to believe. If people want to believe that acting on homosexual urges is displeasing to God, then they should have support for creating a life that makes it possible to please God. Surely no one is against a person trying to do what they think is right to please God.

 

Yes, sex is wonderful. But it isnt required for a happy healthy fulfilling life. Yes music is wonderful....I am actually one of those people who cry when I hear some music....my spine tingles with other.,...I am highly affected by music. And yet I know I don't have to have music to live and be happy. If I went deaf I would lose that gift.....if my Dh became incapacitated in a vegetative state I would lose the gift of sex....

 

We all have to make our own decisions about how to live our lives. My only beef is with those who want to make it worse than a death sentence for a person with ssa to live a chaste life or even to make the decision to marry opposite sex. ( although I do think that spouse has the right to the truth before such a marriage). No I don't have this particul issue.....it doesn't mean I can't have an informed opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heterosexual is not a word that implies one has engaged in sexual activity any time recently, or ever. So I don't understand why homosexual would either.

 

It may be possible to live a happy, healthy single life, but that doesn't mean everyone can manage it. I can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if I told you I found women attractive and exciting you would immediately label me lesbian whether or not I had adopted that title for myself?

 

I don't think finding women attractive and exciting would mean that you were a lesbian. I think women are attractive and exciting, but I don't find them sexually arousing. Those are different things to me. If you told me that you were sexually attracted to women, then I would believe you were a lesbian because you would fit the definition of the word "lesbian." I wouldn't call you that, if you didn't like the word for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heterosexual is not a word that implies one has engaged in sexual activity any time recently, or ever. So I don't understand why homosexual would either.

 

It may be possible to live a happy, healthy single life, but that doesn't mean everyone can manage it. I can't.

e

 

Well sure you could. If you choose not to that is a personal choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not heard of this show.  I'm horribly fascinated by the concept, and simply horrified by it at the same time.  I mean, really?

 

I have had 2 former bf's leave me for men (am I just somehow drawn to them?), which was really weird for me, but I'm happy they figured things out before we went any further.  In fact, one of them is one of my closest BFF's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying you are not in control of your actions?

 

I'm not sure how you get that from this:

 

 

It may be possible to live a happy, healthy single life, but that doesn't mean everyone can manage it. I can't.

 

I interpret it as that she isn't healthy and happy when she is single or can't imagine being happy, healthy and single forever.  It doesn't say anything about actions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you get that from this:

 

 

I interpret it as that she isn't healthy and happy when she is single or can't imagine being happy, healthy and single forever. It doesn't say anything about actions.

I guess I got it from my belief that much of our happiness is in how we choose to view our circumstances and where we choose to place the focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The TL:DR version:

Men can be sealed to more than one woman, but only to women they can be legally married to, i.e. not polygamy. Women can only be sealed to one man (at a time, but reversing a prior sealing is fairly uncommon).

 

Edited for clarity

Doesn't this effectively result in polygyny in the afterlife?

 

Also (random question) does the LDS church have a policy for converts in other countries where polygyny is legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men have to get a sealing clearance (permission to be sealed to more than one living woman). Women have to get a cancelation (permission to have a prior sealing dissolved because a woman can only be sealed to one living man). Both processes involve filling out a form, requesting a letter from the ex-spouse, and submitting this paperwork to the office of the first presidency. The process is overseen and facilitated by the bishop of the petitioner.

Bureaucratic paperwork relevant mostly to the afterlife reminds me of the movie Beetlejuice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well honestly I didn't know we were talking about chronic disease, loneliness and brain chemistry. I thought we were talking about single vs not.

 

 

You don't think any of those things has anything to do with being healthy and happy alone versus with a supportive partner? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...