Gay man marrying a woman.. is it wrong?

[Prodigal_Son]

I guess I would expect the “romance” to fail. I presume the position on the orientation “spectrum” of the individual man may also impact his ability (beyond the mechanical) to play sincerely the part of conjugal partner?

Yes, exactly! So if we talk about the orientation spectrum, things get a lot more clear. For a man who experiences NO attraction to women – parenthetically, how could a man not find women attractive, this just boggles my mind – but anyway, if a man experiences no attraction, I think it would be a very bad idea for him to marry a woman. But I think that most people aren’t that far over on the orientation spectrum.

I agree with the notion of a spectrum of orientation, though I admit I take the word “homosexual” (as opposed to bisexual) to denote a recognised and accepted strong preference for same sex relationships.

I’m not sure. I am attracted to men and women, but – if I were not Christian – I would certainly have called myself “gay”, not “bisexual”. Why? Because my attraction to men is stronger. And yet, I have a very beautiful and fulfilling marriage – with a woman!

And I am very much attracted to her.

One note of caution which has been sounded, I have to agree with. Sexual addiction IS a more serious problem among gay men than among straight men. A gay man who marries a woman is more prone to adulterous temptation for two reasons: (1) They likely have a desire for sexual contact with a man, which cannot be satisfied within matrimony, (2) There is a “hook-up” culture of gay men online, which makes adultery easier for gay men than for straight men.

I don’t think these problems are prohibitive, but they shouldn’t be downplayed, either. As to the first problem, straight men probably also have desires that can’t be satisfied in marriage, so I’m not sure it’s a big deal. As for the second problem, the gay hook-up culture is a serious public health issue, so we really need to make laws to regulate it. Unfortunately, harms caused to consenting adults aren’t considered harms anymore, in this crazy society.

 

[OraLabora]

(3) Both you and OraLabora seem to have a fixed idea of sexual orientation, as if this wasn’t a spectrum. But in fact, most “gay” men are also attracted to women, just not as viscerally as they are attracted to men. Our society’s labels confuse the matter; they don’t clarify anything.

You make a false assumption about my knowledge of sexual and gender issues.

I am well aware that orientation is on a spectrum. However a spectrum also means that there are people near either end of the spectrum. Correct me if I’m wrong but “gay man” implies to me, a male who is very much at the homosexual end of the spectrum. The thread title does not say “bisexual man…”. I think we’ve already established that for some bisexuals, marriage may be able to work, provided that we’re dealing with someone mature, self-aware, and with a solid enough faith life to overcome temptations from men, and a wife willing to be part of the solution.

But someone far at the same-sex end of the spectrum… nice theoretical exercise, but the number of divorced gay who have hooked up with male partners suggests that the reality is something else.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You make a false assumption about my knowledge of sexual and gender issues.

I am well aware that orientation is on a spectrum. However a spectrum also means that there are people near either end of the spectrum. Correct me if I’m wrong but “gay man” implies to me, a male who is very much at the homosexual end of the spectrum. The thread title does not say “bisexual man…”. I think we’ve already established that for some bisexuals, marriage may be able to work, provided that we’re dealing with someone mature, self-aware, and with a solid enough faith life to overcome temptations from men, and a wife willing to be part of the solution.

But someone far at the same-sex end of the spectrum… nice theoretical exercise, but the number of divorced gay who have hooked up with male partners suggests that the reality is something else.

See my comments in the post above.

But I will expand…

Suppose the intensity of my attraction to men is a 9 out of 10, and the intensity of my attraction to women is a 6 out of 10. Unless I’m a Christian, I will probably call myself “gay”. Why? Because it gives me more of an idea of “who I am”. (I’m not endorsing this thinking, but this is how secular people think). If I root for two football teams, but like one much more, I will call myself a “fan” of the one team, not the other. Moreover, in the gay community, it is much cooler, I gather, to say “Girls, icky!” than to say “I like girls too.”

When someone tells you they are gay, you know that person is attracted to people of the same sex. But you don’t know how attracted they might be to people of the opposite sex.

Most everybody hates the term “bisexual”. Especially people (like me) who the term applies to.

 

[OraLabora]

Because it gives me more of an idea of “who I am”. (I’m not endorsing this thinking, but this is how secular people think).

Just speaking from personal experience here, but knowing ourselves, who we are, and presenting one’s self honestly face-to-face with God, is a very healing experience.

Back on the subject, I have met some gay men in the past who have told me the idea of sex with women is utterly revolting to them, just as I find the idea of sex with men revolting. We can generalize, everyone’s experience is somewhat unique.

My take is:

1. Being deceitful and marrying a woman without telling her of your strong same-sex attractions would be wrong;
2. Marrying a woman (assuming she knows and accepts) if you have predominantly same-sex attractions-however you want to call it- greatly increases the chance of failure of the marriage;
3. Someone more in the middle of the spectrum may be able to make marriage work, but it would be difficult, require considerable maturity, lots of trust on the woman’s part, good solid support and faith system, and big doses of forgiveness, because there will likely be times where, even if the man doesn’t fall to temptation, he may have difficulty with conjugal relations if his mind and fantasies are elsewhere.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just speaking from personal experience here, but knowing ourselves, who we are, and presenting one’s self honestly face-to-face with God, is a very healing experience.

I agree.

Moreover, I don’t think sexual orientation is a part of a person’s identity. But honesty with God, and with trustworthy people, about SSA is absolutely critical. Without honesty, the SSA is central; with honesty, SSA is just another struggle.

Back on the subject, I have met some gay men in the past who have told me the idea of sex with women is utterly revolting to them, just as I find the idea of sex with men revolting.

Well, I have strong SSA, and, for me, sex with women is appealing, whereas penetrative sex with men is revolting. For many men, same-sex attraction is an attraction to people (or images of people), not to sex acts.

Many married people, at first, think sex of any kind is revolting. Somehow or other, that revulsion goes away in the context of a relationship, in the context of sexual attraction to a person.

1. Being deceitful and marrying a woman without telling her of your strong same-sex attractions would be wrong;

I agree, 100%.

1. Marrying a woman (assuming she knows and accepts) if you have predominantly same-sex attractions-however you want to call it- greatly increases the chance of failure of the marriage;

Sure. But so do many psychological disorders, or many personal habits (immature spending habits), or many patterns of selfishness, of any sort. We don’t marry people because we think “this marriage” will be the most likely marriage to last; we marry people out of a desire to love them fully, in the image of Christ’s love for the Church. Of course, we should be prudent, all the same.

But if someone I love and care about *might *fall into sin and hurt me badly, that is no reason for me to withhold my commitment from them.

1. Someone more in the middle of the spectrum may be able to make marriage work, but it would be difficult, require considerable maturity, lots of trust on the woman’s part, good solid support and faith system, and big doses of forgiveness, because there will likely be times where, even if the man doesn’t fall to temptation, he may have difficulty with conjugal relations if his mind and fantasies are elsewhere.

I think all that is needed in every marriage, most likely. But as for “his mind and his fantasies” being elsewhere, I think you’re talking about something you don’t know much about. I am predominantly attracted to men, and I don’t allow myself to fantasize about anyone but my wife. Her body and her soul are my desire.

Have I fallen into sin? Yes, to my dismay. But I do not see a huge difference between me and a person who is recovering from an addiction to heterosexual pornography.

 

[OraLabora]

I agree.

Moreover, I don’t think sexual orientation is a part of a person’s identity.

My view is that it is part of one’s identity, but only part of that identity.

My beef with the LGBT movement is that they seem to make it the MAIN part of one’s identity, as if nothing else matters.

I mean, I don’t waddle up to people and say “hi, my name’s OraLabora, and I’m a heterosexual…”. My identity is the the whole package that is OraLabora. Sure my sexuality is part of that package but so’s everything else: Catholicism, Benedictine spirituality, brown hair (greying and balding alas…), 180 cm tall, husband, father, analyst, etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My view is that it is part of one’s identity, but only part of that identity.

My beef with the LGBT movement is that they seem to make it the MAIN part of one’s identity, as if nothing else matters.

I mean, I don’t waddle up to people and say “hi, my name’s OraLabora, and I’m a heterosexual…”. My identity is the the whole package that is OraLabora. Sure my sexuality is part of that package but so’s everything else: Catholicism, Benedictine spirituality, brown hair (greying and balding alas…), 180 cm tall, husband, father, analyst, etc.

So perhaps we’re talking past each other here. I agree that someone might use the word “gay” to describe themselves, and by that mean that they’re attracted to people of the same sex. I have no problem with that. That’s like saying “I’m an analyst”, for example.

But “gay” is used more like the words “male” or “female” – as if “gayness” is some extremely important – and *intrinsic *, and God-given – fact about a person. That’s the usage that seems to me problematic.

 

[thewanderer]

I know that for the most part people have been talking about a homosexual who hides his orientation from his future wife, but I want to bring in Josh Weed as his story still seems very pertinent to the question at hand. Basically, he is a Mormon, who, because of his religious beliefs wanted a traditional family. However, he discovered that he did not experience physical attraction to women at all. In the end, he still married a woman who he was very close with and they claim to be happily married, deeply in love, with three kids and a good sex life despite the fact that Josh is not physically attracted to women. Its really interesting to read actually.

joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html

I would say that it is at least imprudent for someone with same-sex attraction to marry without letting their spouse know about it beforehand, and if they have no attraction to the opposite sex then it would be wrong to marry without telling that fact to their future spouse. However, if it is a case like that of Josh Weed, where both people are fully aware of what they are getting into, but still love each other and want to get married and share their lives together despite this added difficulty than I really can’t see anything against it. I think it is a very rare case, something that is not (and ought not) to happen often, but because of this story I would be very hesitant to claim that it is outright wrong for someone who has no attraction to the opposite sex to marry.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think it is a very rare case…

Actually, it would be very hard for us to know how rare such a case is. It’s not like men who have SSA, and marry a woman, are often going to publicize this, a la Josh Weed. I’m just revealing it about myself, essentially anonymously, on an internet forum – and that takes courage enough!

 

[acacia12]

Actually, it would be very hard for us to know how rare such a case is. It’s not like men who have SSA, and marry a woman, are often going to publicize this, a la Josh Weed. I’m just revealing it about myself, essentially anonymously, on an internet forum – and that takes courage enough!

I agree and thanks for your courage. I know of a couple of people that have SSA and have chosen to marry the opposite sex. They found that it was those from the “gay community” that gave them the most hard time. Saying such things as " they have been brain washed" and “they must have self hatred”

 

[Rau]

But “gay” is used more like the words “male” or “female” – as if “gayness” is some extremely important – and *intrinsic *, and God-given – fact about a person. That’s the usage that seems to me problematic.

Imagine a homosexual with nil interest in women. I this case, I can well appreciate their need to validate their condition, to see it as intrinsic and fundamental, for by that process, they justify their involvement in a same sex relationship.

Also, you said the term bisexual is not liked. Can you explain why?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Imagine a homosexual with nil interest in women. I this case, I can well appreciate their need to validate their condition, to see it as intrinsic and fundamental, for by that process, they justify their involvement in a same sex relationship.

For millenia, men justified their sexual relationships with other men without creating the notion of being “gay”. Greece, Rome, and Shakespearean England were full of this, but there was no notion of homosexuality as a concept. So I don’t agree with your point here.

Also, you said the term bisexual is not liked. Can you explain why?

On the surface, it seems to mean that you are “both sexes”. But I’m not both sexes. It sounds like “transsexual”. It implies that you can’t distinguish sexes, that you’re just a sex fiend. There’s just a lot to dislike about it.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

My view is that it is part of one’s identity, but only part of that identity.

I want to add my thoughts here. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

My beef with the LGBT movement is that they seem to make it the MAIN part of one’s identity, as if nothing else matters.

I vaguely remember having a similar impression and it was probably because I heard someone else say it first but I don’t find it true at all. Is it possible that it seems that way because what you are encountering people who are saying it to establish where they are coming from, that they have speaking from experience?

I mean, I don’t waddle up to people and say “hi, my name’s OraLabora, and I’m a heterosexual…”. My identity is the the whole package that is OraLabora. Sure my sexuality is part of that package but so’s everything else: Catholicism, Benedictine spirituality, brown hair (greying and balding alas…), 180 cm tall, husband, father, analyst, etc.

Have you experienced this or do you know anyone that has? Most that I know of struggled with coming out and once they did none neurotically introduced themselves, “Hi, I’m ______, and I’m gay.”

 

[Rau]

So perhaps we’re talking past each other here. I agree that someone might use the word “gay” to describe themselves, and by that mean that they’re attracted to people of the same sex. I have no problem with that. That’s like saying “I’m an analyst”, for example.

But “gay” is used more like the words “male” or “female” – as if “gayness” is some extremely important – and *intrinsic *, and God-given – fact about a person. That’s the usage that seems to me problematic.

Let me have a 2nd go at commenting on this…!

I don’t think many use the word “Gay” to convey the limited meaning you describe in your first para. That could almost be an incidental attribute - perhaps a little unusual, but not particularly noteworthy. No, I think most persons, when they describe themselves as Gay, do mean something significant - and in many respects, it is.

Now, the Gay person who wishes he were not gay, may prefer to view it as not particularly significant - after all it is a ‘condition’ that he is not happy about, and does not want to highlight. But for many gays (IMO), “gayness” is seen as a significant attribute, because:

• it is believed to be innate to the person (fundamental);
• as a “fundamental aspect of the person”, it must be respected & accepted, and by its operation and fundamental nature, leads to an argument that Gay couples are no less valid than heterosexual pairings, and hence it follows that the societal rights and privileges (including civil marriages) attached to heterosexual couples should apply to them also.

Note that one can hold the view that gayness is a fundamental attribute - and talk about it all the time (perhaps to the point of defining oneself by this single attribute!), or do the reverse - taking the view that it is so natural and fundamental that it hardly deserves comment. Persons adopting either behaviour can still employ the reasoning above.

So, to a degree, I come back to the conclusion that a gay person needs to see Gayness as “significant”, in order to argue (with a predominately heterosexual community) for the rights he seeks - or if you like - to justify a lifestyle.

**

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Now, the Gay person who wishes he were not gay, may prefer to view it as not particularly significant - after all it is a ‘condition’ that he is not happy about, and does not want to highlight. But for many gays (IMO), “gayness” is seen as a significant attribute, because:

• it is believed to be innate to the person (fundamental);
• as a “fundamental aspect of the person”, it must be respected & accepted, and by its operation and fundamental nature, leads to an argument that Gay couples are no less valid than heterosexual pairings, and hence it follows that the societal rights and privileges (including civil marriages) attached to heterosexual couples should apply to them also.

So, to a degree, I come back to the conclusion that a gay person needs to see Gayness as “significant”, in order to argue (with a predominately heterosexual community) for the rights he seeks - or if you like - to justify a lifestyle.

I certainly agree that there are cultural and personal reasons that people think being gay is some extremely important fact about themselves. But the strong attraction to people of the same sex is not one of them.

**

Far from it. Sex between men in Greece and Rome was ordinary and acceptable. And no one cared about calling it marriage, one way or the other. And no notion of homosexuality, as such, developed.