50 Comment(s)

1. I’m a gay man with an LDS background who has made peace with his orientation. I married, had children and tried my best to do what I had been taught was right. I am probably a 5 on the HH scale. This caused an immense amount of misery for all involved. We weren’t able to keep the marriage afloat (my blog has the details).

   My advice to young people with same-sex attraction is to exercise extreme caution before attempting a MOM. It may work for some (especially those who are quite bisexual), but you may well overestimate the ability of you and your spouse to live with the incongruities of the situation over the long haul.

   Whether single, same-sex coupled or in a MOM, gay people are worthy of dignity and respect. There can be honor in each of these paths.

   Comment # 1 by MoHoHawaii | Apr 24, 2007 | Reply

2. I am in the process of divorce from a gay LDS husband. We were married for 13 years, about 10 of them quite miserable for both of us. I did not know of his orientation before our marriage, because he was counseled by a bishop not to tell me, and assured that a temple marriage would “cure” him. I am (for obvious reasons) unable to approach the level of objectivity that would allow useful generalizations from my experience. However, one facet of my experience that I’d like to add into the discussion is the overwhelming focus of church leaders on helping gay men, and the relative neglect of both lesbians and straight wives. I believe this is an unconscious artifact of the patriarchal structure of the church, rather than a bias based in misogyny. The effect, however, can be devastating for women–my husband has had extensive meetings with bishops, stake presidencies, etc., all focused on helping him stay “chaste” (i.e. not sexually active with men) and active in the church, but also, of course, demonstrating his leaders’ care and concern for him. Except when I have asked to be included in such meetings, I have never been invited, nor has any bishop (we’ve worked with about 7 in our peripatetic married life) made any attempt at pastoral outreach to me. The need to save a righteous priesthood holder, combined with the social discomfort of dealing with a married woman about whose sex life one has too much information (!), means that, at least in my case and I suspect in many others, women are isolated from the church support networks that can help gay men manage the conflicts of staying in the church.

   Comment # 2 by anonymous | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

3. I think the Saviour said it best but for some reason we don’t want to listen to what he tells us:

   “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

   Matthew 19:12

   We are so adamant about a life of marriage being essential to exaltation that we disregard our Lord when he clarifies that not everyone is meant to get married in this life. However, we have not yet gained an understanding why gays and lesbians are so oriented (from a plan of salvation standpoint) or how we are to treat same sex attraction (as a challenge to be overcome or as a blessing to be appreciated).

   I think any young gay man or woman entering marriage to meet others expectations or to escape discovering himself or herself is only sowing the seeds of pain and misery for themselves, their spouses and their children.

   P.S. - Coincidentally, this is in the same chapter where he gives his very direct and explicit comments about divorce which we also conveniently ignore.

   Comment # 3 by Michael | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

4. Dr. Show, great post overall. I’d like to add a couple clarifications, since you’ve included comments of mine on this and other blogs. The problem is you’ve made some pretty heavy assumptions and inferred meaning that simply wasn’t there.

   My comments on Mormon Mentality about CL Pearson and Bob Rees had absolutely nothing to do with MOMs. Though I’m not sure I would share their perspective on MOMs (assuming they even share one another’s), I simply said nothing about it. The only thing I referred to there was their general vision for the Church on this issue. And I certainly did not claim to “know the doctrine more purely.” That was all your projection/transference. I only said “there is much of their perspective(s) that I really don’t share or agree with.” There are many on the other side of the ideological divide I could say the same thing about.

   Comment # 4 by Tito | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

5. I appreciate this particular discussion. I tried, in the “Fourth Way” thread, to bring up the fact that marriage is still implicitly encouraged for gay men in the LDS church, despite official pronouncements against using marriage as a “cure.” I wasn’t very effective in getting that across. To put it simply, when Dallin Oaks speaks of what kind of gay men can/should enter into a heterosexual marriage, he conveys (consciously or not) an expectation. Gay men are *expected* to repent of any indiscretions, “control” their sexual desires, and develop “attraction for a daughter of God.” The gay man who comes short of these descriptions isn’t just unqualified for marriage—he has fallen short of expectations entirely.

   Here is the challenge that I see. There is a big part of me that would love to sit down with every young gay man in the LDS church who is considering heterosexual marriage. I would caution them that what feels “in control” at age 21 may be very different at age 39. When I married, I did so in good faith, full of confidence that my homosexual desires were temptations I could and should shrug off. I expected to ride off into the eternal family sunset, and live happily ever after. My then-wife learned of my attraction to men about seven years into the marriage, when it was already becoming a more prominent issue for me. Even then, however, I held myself back. I believed what the LDS church taught on the subject. I believed that homosexuality was my “cross” to bear, and that by “overcoming” that “test,” I would be rewarded. At that point, my homosexual desires were more focused on the physical, and it was relatively easy to refrain. As I grew older, however, the emotional aspects of that attraction became more and more prominent, until I reached a point where I could no longer face living my life without loving, and being loved, in the way I needed and wanted.

   These are the things I would like to be able to tell young gay men who are considering a heterosexual marriage. Here’s the problem. If someone would have told me all the above, when I was 21 and had the world by the tail, I would never have listened! After I came out of the closet, my own mother told me for the first time that she had known I was gay since I was 8 or 9 years old. Of course she wasn’t going to tell me that while I was married, but what would I have done if she came to me when I was 21 and engaged? I can tell you exactly what I would have done. I would have considered her the messenger of Satan himself. I would have entirely denied what she had to say. I would have taken her cautions as an attack on my faith.

   So there’s the challenge I see, Dr. Schow. It’s not just what we tell these young men, or what resources we provide. It’s how we get them to consider that message against the “happily ever after” expectation of eternal heterosexual marriage—the most important “success” in LDS thought.

   Comment # 5 by Nick Literski | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

6. It’s great to see you guest posting here, Ron. I’ve admired your work and activism over the years.

   I’m of a like mind as Ron, Bob Rees, and Carol Lynn Pearson on this subject. I was surprised to read that Tito and others disagreed with Bob’s and Carol’s approach to this issue. Tito didn’t outline exactly where his views and Bob’s or Carol’s view diverged. Maybe he does this on his blog. If he reads this though, I’d be interested to see him do it here as well.

   I think Ron’s three key issues effectively sum up the key factors that will eventually mean the success or failure of those who choose the Third Path. Time (length of marriage) and age are two other important variables. Not to be skeptical, but when I read or hear the accounts and life goals/plans of young, twentysomething gay Mormons who choose the Third or Fourth Path, the Ty Mansfields, Ben Christensens and others, they always strike me as too idealistic. Of course, this is common to most twentysomethings, and possibly more so for LDS twentysomethings. I look back on my own twentysomething idealism with regards to my future career, wife, children, church relationship, etc. and it is surprising to see the way my life has unfolded. Realism has replaced idealism, and while my career, family, and church relationship doesn’t have the storybook sheen of my twentysomething aspirations, the result is infinitely more colorful, deep, and meaningful than were my idealistic expectations. Most gays I’ve known, at least those on the 5-6-7 end of the scale who choose the Third or Fourth Path, seem to eventually replace their celibate and/or hetero-relationship idealism with a more colorful, deep, and meaningful realism, fully embracing their authentic selves.

   Comment # 6 by Matt Thurston | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

7. Tito

   I appreciate your clarification on Bob and Carol Lynn. The focus here is on MOMs but, in some ways this touches both single and married LDS homosexuals and certainly their (Bob and Carol Lynn’s) “general vision for the Church on this issue” is pertinent to this discussion. My reference to knowing the doctrine purely, related to this comment #44 by you on the MormonMentality blog.

   “In fact, a lot of what they say strikes me as a bit presumptuous and “arch(sic)-steadying.” My feeling is that their perception and paradigm has been shaped through exposure to a very limited demographic of individuals dealing with the issue.”

   Since both Bob and Carol Lynn are active church members and Bob is heavily involved in doctrinal discussions on the BYU Book of Mormon roundtable and elsewhere, both have books for sale on the Deseret Book website, and both have been involved within the Church on this issue for decades, I don’t think either are “presumptuous” in what they have said or written. Nor do I think either are operating from a “limited demographic.”

   I’m suprised, in fact, that you would presume to make such a statement.

   Nevertheless, I believe your personal perspective on your personal situation is valuable and I am sorry if i overstated what you, in fact, said or meant. I propose we move on, because I sense that you have valuable input on this issue.

   All the best,
   Ron

   Comment # 7 by Ron Schow | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

8. Anonymous Sister, Michael, Nick and Matt

   I think you are each touching on important issues. I agree that the woman’s side of this is being ignored in the Church. I believe the scriptural doctrine is there to support a place for homosexuals in the Church and that everyone should not need to be in a heterosexual marriage to make the celestial kingdom. I feel, the frustration described by Nick and Matt, in that none of the LDS youth are inclined to listen to you (because you, Nick, are out of the Church) or me (even though I’m in the Church).

   I do believe that our LDS youth, in general, will listen to Church leaders, institute and seminary teachers, bishops, women leaders, etc. The problem we have right now is that most of these authority figures don’t fully understand this issue and they are getting a mixed message when they consult professionals. Furthermore, they have very little real direction in the handbook, etc, and when we get something like the Oaks/Wickman statement, in my mind, it gets confusing because of all the discussion about gay marriage and only limited attention to the many LDS youth who are trying to sort out if they can marry.

   I am very heartened because we are making some small steps of progress. We finally have some of the key LDS therapists who are describing what is really going on in therapy. We have Bishops like Bob Rees speaking the truth based on 50 homosexuals he has worked with in a church setting. We seem to be getting consistent statements that the Brethren understand “orientation.” As Elder Wickman posted last August. on the Church website “…gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person.” First Presidency statements show they are understanding gay people need “respect.” This is not a “choice” has appeared in the Ensign. They even are beginning to speak out about therapy and admit that as Elder Wickman said “Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not.” The Church, thankfully, is gradually giving up the Evergreen “mantra” which is “Bishop, we can fix this if we just send them to the right therapist.” (I have been at many Evergreen Church leader sessions and I assure you this is what they tell the Bishops) Elder Wickman said “….But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’

   The reason the therapy statement in the Oaks/Wickman statement is not stronger, I believe, is that the Evergreen types keep bearing their testimony based on “success cases” that go to therapy and get married. The reality is there are precious few 5s and 6s or Evergreen types who do get married.

   One of the huge problems, I believe, is that bisexual persons, as I have noted in my initial post are several times more prevalent in the American and LDS populations. They can get married and most do and then as 1s and 2s and 3s who are married but have some homosexual attraction (especially the males who are bishops and GAs) they conclude that ANYONE with homosexual attraction can marry and manage like they have. Unfortunately, the 5s and 6s don’t do that well in marriage.

   I believe if we could get the Evergreen and NARTH folks to look at the facts (many of them are also 2s and 3s and 4s) , and realize the bisexual situation and how it complicates the issue, we could then get Church Leaders to provide more leadership in this area. When that happens, and the Bishops, seminary and institute teachers, relief society leaders, and others begin to help identify youth who are 5s and 6s and help them realize they may not be able to marry, then we will turn a corner. I believe if Elder Oaks or President Monson were to get up in conference and speak clearly along those lines, we would see an immediate shift in how the 20 somethings relate to this issue.

   Truly, we need to find a way to have the Evergreen types and the Sunstone types all speak with one voice. I don’t know if that will ever be possible, but if it happens I believe we would have a chance to really persuade the Brethren and they could bring along the rest of the Church.

   I believe a few of the Brethren ( and key Sisters) already want to move in this direction. I believe Sherry Dew is trying to help because she was very instrumental in getting “In Quiet Desperation” published. I see the great value of “IQD” is that it underscores the points that “it is not a choice” and “it does not go away.” If those thinking about marriage truly understand that, then the LDS MOM situation could improve.

   Ron

   Comment # 8 by Ron Schow | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

9. Anonymous, comment 2

   I agree with you. However, I am not entirely sure the focus on the gay husband is a function of the Church’s patriarchal structure, as much as it may be of our usual societal focus on the “patient” rather than the “patient’s” family members. We often fail to realize that the family members struggle and hurt as much or more as the individual with the direct challenge, and need as much or more by way of support.

   The only offical support organization I know of for LDS wives who have been married or are married to gay men is http://www.wearewildflowers.com. There may or may not be other sources of support where you live. I hope your local leaders will be inspired to work harder in facilitating support for you.

   Comment # 9 by DavidH | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

10. In giving guidance to young people considering MOMs, an appeal to the “data” or to “science” certainly has merit. But the data should all be qualified and seldom is. Typically, people take it to mean far more than it does (sometimes even those with considerable academic training).

    As for myself, I’m curious: If there are 5s and 6s in the group whose marriages have continued over an extended period, shouldn’t we be asking what made them successful just as much as we’re asking what made the others fail? Shouldn’t we be wondering if there are ways to mitigate the eventual problems MOMs face rather than just attributing the failures to the fact that they married at all?

    Some argue there just isn’t anyone to ask. But I know a couple blogs off the top of my head written by gay men who have been married for 20+ years, do not consider themselves to be bisexual in the least, and are dealing quite well.

    And finally, Dr. Schow, you haven’t quite captured my thoughts on how prayer should enter the decision making process. I believe every reasonable effort should be made by those considering an MOM to inform themselves regarding the relevant issues (including an assessment, for example, of their HH scale, their libido, and their maturity). However, God knows all things, and I refuse to be persuaded that His advice isn’t going to trump the rest. And, were you inclined to do so, I suspect a study could be constructed that would demonstrate the inadequacy of self-reported answers to prayer as a predictor of marital success. But as I’ve mentioned before, in my opinion such things are not amenable to measurement by science and could only serve to advance inaccurate conclusions. Such a study wouldn’t change my faith, and it certainly wouldn’t change my advice to young people of the LDS faith considering an MOM.

    Comment # 10 by -L- | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

11. This important clarification about Dan Gray’s AMCAP presentation is directed as much to Nick (from comment #1) as to Ron. I was there, and it is important to understand the purpose of his presentation. It was actually a very restricted topic, which was sexual intimacy within a marriage where one member deals with homosexual attractions. Its purpose was not to discuss the myriad of other issues in a so-called MOM that are probably more determinative. I think it is the NUMBER ONE concern of young men contemplating marriage, but actually not that important to most of those actually in marriage. This echo’s Nick’s point above, when he says his concerns were focused on the physical when he was younger, but the emotional aspects gradually gained prominence. One of the panel members said as much quite forcefully, when he said that sexual intimacy was an important and welcome part of his marriage, but not the most important. He also said it was his experience, and his wife agreed, that he had never seen a failed SSA marriage where the cause of that failure was exclusively or even primarily due to the sexual relationship between the couple itself. Your mileage may vary, of course.

    I hope this would correct Nick’s impression that this was some (failed) attempt to “promote” the successes of married LDS SSA men. All three couples were quite young and none, I think, married longer than a decade, as Nick suggests. Dr. Gray said this was because it is difficult to find older married couples who were willing to discuss their sexual relationship so openly. This is a generational phenomenon, I think. Even among the younger ages, Dr. Gray had difficulty finding people willing to talk about this openly.

    Since the goal of the session was to talk about ways to foster healthy sexual functioning within couples, I don’t think it was Dr. Gray’s intent for us to conclude he was trying to present these couples as successful, enduring marriages beyond the single confined area of sexual intimacy, which may not in the end be all that decisive. It’s an understandable misimpression, as several of the questioners missed the point of the panel as well, I think, based on their comments and questions.

    Also, Nick said that all three men told their wives before they married. While all, including the wives, agreed this is very important, in fact one of the men said he did not tell his wife before he married.

    Ron says that a friend of his who attended believed that at least two of the men appeared to be lower-scoring on the HH scale. I think the three represented a range, though I doubt any of them consider themselves bisexual. Against what one might expect, the least homosexual of the three was the one who has had the most problems in his marriage, and who was also teased, he said, when he was young for being effeminate. This could, of course, in Ron’s model, be attributed to the other two dimensions (libido/sublimation or compatibility/maturity) he has studied.

    I don’t know what Ron is suggesting we should conclude from his mentioning his friend’s impression that the wives were “relatively quiet”. Though they didn’t say as much as the men (a common but unfortunate phenomenon, as “anonymous’” #2 observes), they didn’t strike me as particularly passive or downtrodden, if that’s what he was trying to say. I thought they were bright, articulate, and firmly in possession of their own opinions.

    Comment # 11 by Borealis | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

12. I second -L-’s call for us to examine successful marriages among 5’s and 6’s.

    If we were examining cabanas destroyed in a hurricane, after a careful look at the wreckage we might conclude that the shingles, trusses, and windows were the cause. It’s only in looking at intact cabanas that we would discover hurricane nails and shear hooks were in fact the vital factor.

    While I know many couples that would qualify as successful, I cannot see how coming forward would benefit them. Even the three panelists experiences on Dan Gray’s panel, however limited, have not been welcome. Here and elsewhere their experiences have been misreported, marginalized, or dismissed out of hand (most ridiculously in one case as some First Presidency PR campaign). I would think more of these couples would only be a further irritant. For that reason, I couldn’t in good conscience recommend to any of them that they put themselves through the grief.

    No one should construe my comments here for me advocating marriage as a solution. At best, it is an opportunity to create something with another person. Even in this best of circumstances, the outcome can never be known with certainty beforehand. At worst, it is a tragic attempt to fit in to cultural expectations.

    Here, again, -L- is probably more articulate than me. To extend his point on the insufficiency of science to treat faith and prayer in matters of marriage (or anything else), I suggest that we shouldn’t view God’s sanction on our marriages as a money-back guarantee. Marriage should not be seen as only the answer to prayer. We should take that answer and through the exercise of our faith and prayers, mutually create something that cannot be reduced to mere statistically inevitability, no matter how accurately measured. The answer is a call to mutual creation (involving God, husband, and wife), not an ironclad promise regardless of human agency.

    And whether we have the opportunity for marriage or not, through faith we embark on the same act of creation. Faith means that we are not automatically destined or doomed to one “path” or four. Faith says we don’t have to know that right now. Faith allows us to be open to mystery and miracle. We do not automatically assume that we are forced to either sacrifice our son Isaac on the altar or disobey God’s command. Faith is being open to the possibility of the ram in the thicket. We cannot force that ram to come, let alone predetermine what it will look like. That cannot be chosen. We can only choose to be open to it, to “hope and quietly wait” for it.

    Comment # 12 by Borealis | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

13. I appreciate the construtive comments of Borealis and -L-.

    I agree with Borealis that there is probably very little to be gained by contacting a couple of guys who have been in an MOM for 20 years. For one thing, we need to contact both parties to a marriage if we have any hope of really assessing the outcomes.

    I’m not a marriage or family therapist nor do I know a lot about family science. Perhaps some with those skills will surface in the discussion here. What I would suggest, however, for discussion purposes is that if -L- wants to inquire about what would make an MOM successful we can probably say “the same things that will make any marriage successful.” In other words, if you are in an MOM you try to be the best marriage partner you can be. I felt Elder Oaks had some reasonable suggestions about marriage in his last conference talk.

    If you are not in an MOM but are thinking about one, then I think the same thing applies. You try to approach marriage in the best way you know how. They have a useful questionnaire at BYU which prospective spouses can take to determine compatibility and asses other important factors. It is called RELATE and you can look it up online. There are also other similar tools. I believe we look for all the compatibility and maturity we can find when we marry.

    This means that, whenever possible we look for compatibility in sexual orientation. Heterosexuals generally speaking will look for heterosexuals to marry. It is important for prospective spouses to honestly assess this. When you find that you honestly are not a zero on the HH Scale or your prospective partner is not, it seems to me you must view that as an incompatibility. The higher the number the higher the incompatibility, if the other person is a zero. If the HH Scale number is a 5 or 6 it seems to me we should not kid ourselves into thinking that is a small incompatibility. I believe we know it will “not go away” and that if we are talking about a long-standing persistent “core aspect” of the prospective spouse’s personality (to use Elder Wickman’s words) we should also assess the ability of both partners to sublimate sexual desire and make a realistic assessment of libido. Without the experience of marriage that is probably hard to do, but some are surely less interested in sex than others.

    I believe that for many couples, it is a major blow to the prospects for marriage success, if sex is not going to be normal and healthy. But I also think some couples might choose that, as they might choose to ignore some other incompatibility because of other compensating factors.

    I believe Nick is right though, when he suggests the emotional and sexual desires and feelings of deprivation may grow over time and lead to huge frustration. In a perfect world I believe homosexuals would be with homosexuals and be perfectly sexually compatible.

    In our discussion on -L-s blog, Jeff posted these questions. I think they are pretty useful for someone thinking about an MOM. Anyone think they might be useful?

    -Are you getting married because you want to conform to some social ideal? What do you really want for yourself, deep down? What is your fundamental identity? If the Church changed its position on homosexuality tomorrow (which I don’t believe they will, but for the sake of argument), would you still want to marry Suzie Q? Given that they haven’t, are you being fair to Suzie Q by settling for something less than what you really seem to want?

    -Why do you want to get married now? Is there some deadline your pushing up against that makes you want to rush things?

    -What is the relative importance of sex for you, and your partner? How often and what kind? Do your wishes in that regard correspond at all to your partner’s? Have you talked about this before your wedding night? Are you capable of discussing sex in explicit terms with your potential mate, and is she able to do so with you?

    -When you make out with your girlfriend, have you ever gotten an erection? More than once?

    -What happens when you think about touching your girlfriend in one of her erogenous zones? Let’s start with the chest and move down.

    -If there are problems in your marriage (with sex, but also money and other things), can you have a constructive discussion with your spouse and are you both able to work towards resolution? What kinds of problems have there been so far in your relationship, and how have you two tried to solve them?(Red flag if they say either that there aren’t any, or they haven’t resolved any.)

    -If there will be aspects of your sexual performance that are unsatisfying to your wife, are you willing to work on them, and if necessary, to even seek professional help? Is your wife willing to do the same?

    -What are your expectations for sex in your marriage? Are you looking for the same sort of thrill with her that you experienced with looking at porn, or having sex with a guy? How will you feel if it isn’t the same?

    -How much homosexual experience have you had? Are you expecting that to cease completely after you get married? What basis do you have for thinking so? Do you have a reasonable track record of sexual sobriety? What if it continues or you relapse? Does your fiancee know about all of this in sufficient detail? What will she do if you relapse, or do something new? Have you talked about how you would handle that?

    [These last ones are for the wife]

    -Are you expecting mind-blowing sex immediately after your wedding vows? Are you willing to be patient with your partner and not take difficulties with sexual performance personally? Will you be able to avoid making your future husband feel badly if he isn’t able to perform up to his or your expectations right away?

    -If the level of physical intimacy and verbal affirmation of your beauty your fiance provides currently remains at the same level when you are married, will you be satisfied with that level, or are you hoping that this will all magically change after you are married? Will you forever be pining for a husband like Robert Redford in The Way We Were? Do you really think Robert Redford would go for Barbra Streisand in real life? With that nose? (Just joking!)

    -Does it threaten your self-concept and self-esteem in a serious way if your husband should find another man attractive, to the degree that you would be seriously threatened, hurt, or angry? Is your self-worth inextricably tied up in getting constant affirmation about your looks, to the exclusion of anyone else being attractive too? (I call this the Snow White Queen syndrome–not only must the Queen be beautiful, no one else can be at all.)

    I don’t say that all of these must be answered positively, but most of them should. Most importantly, couples must be able to talk about sex constructively and openly, their expectations, fears, and even the explicit mechanics about what is and isn’t okay, and they must start that process before the wedding.

    Comment # 13 by Ron Schow | Apr 25, 2007 | Reply

14. Borealis said this toward the bottom of comment #11.

    “Ron says that a friend of his who attended believed that at least two of the men appeared to be lower-scoring on the HH scale. I think the three represented a range, though I doubt any of them consider themselves bisexual.”

    In my mind there are only two numbers on the HH Scale that are NOT bisexual. Zeros are labeled exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual and 6s are labeled exclusively homosexual . Every other number on the scale is a combination of both and therefore bisexual.

    The scale is determined based half on behavior and half on dreams/fantasies (psychic in nature). Once you have been married for a while, assuming there is some sexual aspect to the marriage, you start to move down on the scale. Of course, people can talk about an HH scale position which ignores experience/behavior but that is not the way the original research was done.

    In the Kinsey, et al, 1948 data on 3,467 —20 year olds there were only 4.9% who were 6s. If you count all the 1-5s I consider those to be the bisexuals. There were 23% bisexuals in the 20 year olds and 3.3 % were asexuals. All the rest, nearly 70%, were totally heterosexual. I consider the Laumann, et al 1994 data to be more accurate inasmuch as a population probability sample was used. Self identified gay men were 2.8%….self identified lesbians were 1.4%. The totals bi and gay when you consider behavior and attractions/appeal/identity was 8.6% for women and 10.1% for men.

    In short, I believe there are a lot more men (and women) dealing with bisexuality than those who are purely homosexual. It seems strange to me that you feel these “married men” don’t consider themselves to be bisexual. I’m pretty sure the original Kinsey, et al study would classify them as bisexual.

    Sometimes I think this gets political, and those who are wanting to insist that they have “changed” love to describe themselves as having been completely gay when, in fact, they probably were and “are still” bisexual.

    Comment # 14 by Ron Schow | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply

15. -L- #10:
    If I read you correctly, you seem to be saying that self-perceived answers to prayer “trump” secular studies and data. I can understand your position, coming from the perspective that deity “knows all things.” Unfortunately, even the most “spiritual” are quite capable of misinterpreting these self-perceived answers. The influences of socialization, including a constant diet of being told by authority figures what deity thinks, will naturally affect how one interprets “answers” to prayer. I certainly prayed about getting married. I believed at the time that I received a very powerful direction to marry the woman I did. Now, I’m sure some would find all sorts of “faith promoting” ways to explain that my answer really was divine direction, and that I failed to obey, etc., etc. In hindsight, however, I had a very strong belief in Mormonism, and I wanted all the things that Mormonism promises–things that hinge upon eternal heterosexual marriage. I didn’t need a bishop to unwisely counsel me that marriage would “fix me.” It was already implicit in the whole world view that heterosexual marriage was the expectation of deity.

    Borealis #11-12:
    Thank you for your insight on the AMCAP meeting. As I noted elsewhere, I was not present, and relied upon news reports of the meeting’s nature and content. I would still maintain, however, that the location of the meeting implies at least tacit approval of the messages given. The LDS church certainly doesn’t open up its headquarters facilities for the promotion of ideas which it finds problematic. (This is far short, by the way, of calling the meeting a “First Presidency PR campaign,” which I never did.)

    Dr. Schow:
    I would hesitate to adopt your characterization of anyone with an H-H score of 1-5 as “bisexual.” So far as I can tell, the score takes past behavior into consideration. In my case, a score would reflect the fact that I had a sexual relationship with a woman for most of 18 years as evidence of a middle-range score. The fact is, however, I didn’t engage in that behavior by any preference. I did so due to religious conviction. Having come out of the closet and embraced who I am, I can’t even begin to entertain the thought of touching a woman sexually. I find it completely unnatural, and even repulsive. I wouldn’t consider myself “bisexual” at all, yet I strongly suspect your categorization of the scores would label me such.

    All:
    Except for Dr. Schow, I see here a tendency to reject the data and proceed on the basis of religious expectation. All these comments about deity’s opinion “trumping” the science, and “making something mroe than statistics” seem to be magical thinking. They represent exactly what so many young gay LDS men experience, when they decide to follow the only path that they’ve been told deity accepts. Faith-based decision making may be very useful in some contexts, but I would hate to encourage young gay men to marry a woman on such a basis, and then hope they can “pray the gay away” for the rest of their lives.

    Comment # 15 by Nick Literski | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply

16. Nick

    As I noted in comment #14

    “Of course, people can talk about an HH scale position which ignores experience/behavior but that is not the way the original research was done.”

    I think what you are saying in comment #15 is that if you look at dreams and fantasies and what you consider your deeply felt orientation to be, it is close to a 6 HH scale position.

    Comment # 16 by Ron Schow | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply

17. Like the first sister who posted, I am also in the middle of a divorce from a gay LDS man, so I probably am not far enough away from the experience to offer too many useful thoughts. But I did have some. First of all, I think I am nervous about placing so much faith in science, particularly the HH scale, because it seems to boil compaitibility and marriage success down to a simple matter of sexual fulfillment. Then, one side says that if you can just change the sexual feelings in some way (ie, Evergreen), you can have a happy marriage; the other side says that the sexual feelings are completely inchangable and that you shouldn’t even attempt marriage. In the first place, as some have pointed out, sexual feelings can change over time. Also, marriage is so much more than sexual compatibility. Even though my husband thinks he’s somewhere around a 4 or 5 on the scale, we’ve never had sexual difficulties. Even our honeymoon was quite pleasant and a good experience for both us. Sex is one of the few areas of our marriage that has not been difficult.

    I also think that the dichotomy between prayer and rationality is false; God expects us study things out in our minds and our hearts. Big decisions like marriage should be undertaken with a balanced blend of looking at other’s experience and the empirical data gathered by scientists, considering our own motivations and feelings, and praying to the Lord for guidance. Like others here have pointed out, prayer is not a trump card or an unconditional guarantee. My husband and I both felt good about our marriage and for a number of years had no problems with it. We also didn’t consult with our church leaders at all about the decision to get married because we felt like it was our decision to make for ourselves.

    Regarding the first sister’s comments, we have actually not worked much with our bishop on fixing our marriage. After our first meeting with him, he declared “I am not a counselor” and gave us the number of a good marriage counselor. Because my husband is not doing anything that affects his standing with the church, there is no need to involve the bishop. I think you should get involved with a counselor or a support group outside of the church. Bishop’s and church leaders are ecclesiastical authorities, and while I believe that they have a place in the process, they are no substitute for trained professional counselors. I think this particular issue is dificult because spiritual issues as well as “earthly” concerns are both involved. That’s not just homosexuality, but other issues that can affect marriages as well. I just get a little concerned when I see people relying solely upon Church sources for support in matters that need outside assistance as well.

    I think the Church could take a more practical, less idealized approach to the marriage issue in general. The goal should be better marriages, not just more marriages. Yes, most people get married when they are still young and idealistic. We need to provide more practical guidance to couples considering marriage. I really like Jeff’s questions and wish that my husband and I had sat down and talked about them during our engagement. Our marriage didn’t fail just because of my husband’s homosexuality, even though that colors a lot of the rest of his life. We also had a lot of other issues due to patterns from family of origin, communication issues, differing views of the gospel, etc. I wonder if you looked at those long-term MOMs that are working if the strategies they use would be much different from those in long-term healthy marriages in general (i.e. good communication, appropriate balancing of needs, etc.)

    Comment # 17 by Another Anon | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply

18. Nick:

    Regarding your thoughts on “magical thinking”. I don’t blame anyone who thinks staying in the Church is too hard or harmful. If you don’t believe it, or think it’s harmful, don’t do it. Heaven is a big place with many mansions. My spiritually-focused comments should only be read in the context of those who have testimonies and desire to be faithful to them. I’m not someone who’s so insecure in his choices that when he sees a gay couple happily walking down the street, hand-in-hand, I have to think, “they’re miserable and they’re going to burn” in order to reassure myself about my own choices.

    Ron:

    First, as I said above, I’m not sure that sexual functioning is necessarily a problem among 5’s and 6’s that are married to women. Contra what you said, that “sex is [likely] not going to be normal and healthy”, I don’t think most reports, even retrospective ones, necessarily support this contention. I think these problems crop up, as “Another Anon” described, or even, if I understood correctly, Nick’s experience. So I don’t really think that MOM couples should automatically expect their marriages to be completely or mostly sexless. As my therapist said to my wife and I before we married, “One way to guarantee there’s going to be a problem is if you assume there’s going to be a problem. All we can do now is talk extensively and opently about each others’ expectations and then assess one anothers’ willingness to work on problems as they arise. If those are aligned, you should proceed in good faith.”

    In a more academic vein, your comments have me thinking about the distribution of homosexuality in the population. As you mention, studies pretty consistently show that female homosexuality is only half as common as male homosexuality. I think that is interesting, and, to me anyway, it suggests that the cause(s) of homosexuality in women and men are probably through different mechanisms, but I don’t know what more to make of it than that.

    So far as the distribution of the population on the heterosexual-homosexual scale, I think you are saying that in both men and women there is a unimodal distribution, shifted leftwards. If we imagine a bell curve shifted far to the left so that the top of the curve is at 0, and smoothly tapering down in the familiar bell shape till you get out to the smallest proportion at 6.

    That makes sense and it’s what the data show in most studies. Interestingly, however, Bailey’s Australian twins study (which is also a good one because, like Laumann, it’s drawn from good samples) [JPSP, 2000, vol 78 #3, 524-536] shows this unimodal distribution you described above for women, but not for men. For men, it was a saddle curve, with higher proportions at kinsey 1 and 6 scales (just slightly higher 1 than 6, not much) and fewer in the “middle” scores.

    Baily writes, “The rate of exclusively heterosexuality (i.e. Kinsey scores of 0) was quite similar for men (91.8%) and women (91.9%). The distribution of nonheterosexual scores [scores above Kinsey 0] differed markedly between the sexes, however. Women were more likely than men to have slight to moderate homosexual feelings (scores of 1-3), and men were more likely to be nearly exclusively homosexual (scores of 5-6).”

    I wish I could put graphics in here and I’d paste in the chart that would show this more clearly.

    My first thought was, “maybe the brand of homosexuality is different in twins?”, but Bailey adds right after the paragraph I quote that fraternal twins showed the same distribution as identical. I don’t know how to reconcile that with Laumann, the Hite Report, or others. So maybe it’s something in the water down under? More seriously, at the very least I do think it supports my sense that different mechanisms are at work in men versus women.

    Ron alludes to the fact that the percentages of people identifying as homosexual varies with age. Bailey addresses this as well, saying that idetifying as homosexual isn’t a good predictor of future homosexuality, but gender nonconformity is. Hmmm.

    Finally, Bailey stoked huge controversy a few years ago with his book on transsexualism, The Man Who Would Be Queen. I mention it here because Bailey argues in this book that transexualism is esentially just a higher number on the Kinsey scale; transexuals are just very gay, even more gay than homosexuals. We’ll have to talk sometime about whether his ideas about “autogynephilia” are valid and what they might mean. But one hornet’s nest at a time.

    My own feelings about the HH scale is that it’s probably too crude. Within myself, it feels like there are two independently varying scales of intensity of both homosexuality and heterosexuality. These vary according to my mood and stressors, and they vary independently. Sometimes I’m strongly attracted to both women and men. Most often, I’m attracted much more to men than women (9 men will turn my head for every 1 woman). But occasionally I’ll notice women more and men hardly at all. Other times, I’m indifferent to both. These last two conditions I refer to as my “vacations”, which sometimes go on for weeks or months at a time.

    I don’t think of myself as bisexual for three reasons. (1) It overstates the case; overwhelmingly my erotic interest is in men. (2) It implies a level of experience and promiscuity with both genders I haven’t really indulged–I’ve only had sex with one woman and no men. What do I really know about my sexual tastes? And (3), the term suggests an indifference to gender; as if it the erotic object’s gender is irrelevant. I experience completely the opposite. Women are attractive to me because they are womanly. Men are attractive to me because they are manly. Ambiguously gendered people just confuse me and don’t attract me. It doesn’t offend me if people refer to me this way, but it just doesn’t ring true to me. One more example where in matters so personal, keenly felt, and poliitically and morally charged, even the terms we use cannot be neutral to everyone.

    Comment # 18 by Borealis | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply

19. To be honest I am not fond of interjecting my thoughts into a public forum especially when it seems we are still in the process of trying to discover the groundwork.

    I agree there is anicodotal information for both success MOMs and unsuccessful. However I can say that the unsucessfull marriages outnumber the successful as I suspect a great many MOMs either dont acknowledge their homosexuality, don’t really care, or (and i think this has greater influence) are afraid to crack open the closet from which they live their lives because of the social taboos against it. There could also be some pressure from the spouse to not discuss this issue.

    However, I agree that there must be some baseline towhich we can obtain some insight beyond the anicdotes.

    like L, I believe that prayer is important in ones life, and yes i do understand that some will misinterprate or misundertand the “spiritual” signal/answer they seek. I also believe that before one enters an MOM they need to be better informed. I think the data would be an intersting starting place but I wouldnt determine the end result by it.

    I ignored my homosexuality for the majority of my life due, mainly from the established social taboos. It is the taboos that we must overcome first, i feel, before we can make any real headway. It would have been nice to be able to understand myself better before hand and given my wife “full disclosure” before marriage. I am very safe to reveal that my wife would probably still have made the same choice.

    BUT, if my wife (and i say this hoping that it will never happen) should leave me, either through death or whatever, I very much doubt that I would marry again. For us compatibility has been the big determinant in our marriage.

    I do hope you will go through with your further studies Ron. And thanks for being one of the voices.

    Comment # 19 by Loyalist | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply

20. ADDENDUM: (second para, second sentence) I meant to say: I suspect that the reason why unsuccessful MOMs out number the successful is…

    sorry for that folks.

    if i didnt make sense, please feel free to contact me.

    Comment # 20 by Loyalist | Apr 26, 2007 | Reply

21. Borealis,
    I agree that “sexual functioning” is certainly possible for many “5s” and “6s” in MOMs, particularly in the earlier years of marriage. I “functioned” enough to have five children. Functioning and fulfillment, however, are two different things. Did I provide my then-wife with a fulfilling sex life? I don’t think so. As time went on, even the functional ability went out the window. In fact, that was the point where I began to face reality–I couldn’t condemn my then-wife or myself to a lifetime of celibacy. Of course, I realize that each couple’s experience will differ.

    Comment # 21 by Nick Literski | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply

22. Borealis

    This whole discussion began with a suggestion that there are three major factors to consider in MOMs. The HH Scale is only one of those. Libido/sublimation and compatibility/maturity are also important. So I agree sexuality is not the only issue as suggested by “another anon.”

    But you said,

    “I’m not sure that sexual functioning is necessarily a problem among 5’s and 6’s that are married to women. …… I don’t think most reports, even retrospective ones, necessarily support this contention. ”

    Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on a few random reports. We have solid evidence from large samples. Again this goes back to my first post. And what i’m reviewing is a general important finding, which may have a few exceptions, but….

    1–We know from a population probability sample of sexuality in the whole USA (Laumann, et al) (this is not just a twin study) that bisexuality is several times (at least 3 or 4 times) more common than those strongly homosexual (those who self identify). (I see no need to force these data into a bell curve..what I have just said speaks for itself)

    2–AND we know that in large national samples and LDS samples, the huge majority (70-90%) of those who come for help to therapy or who are distressed over sexual orientation, are 5s and 6s…..

    3–AND we know that almost every believing person in our culture tries to marry because that is what we need to do to get to the celestial kingdom….

    4–If the 5s and 6s are the huge majority of those who come for help, when they should only be 20 or 25%, based on the national data, then we KNOW 5s and 6s have problems in marriage out of proportion to others.

    5–AND we know from key LDS therapists based on 100s of clients that only a few of the many single men who come are able to marry and that almost all who marry are bisexuals.

    6–AND we know (from Evergreen) that almost half of the LDS men who call for help on this issue are married.

    If you want to pretend, based on a random report or two, that we don’t know about 5s and 6s in marriage, I feel you are ignoring the logical implications from an overwhelming set of LDS and national data.

    As to your reasons for not liking the HH Scale, I guess I can see that you want to have a more complex system to describe your unique feelings. But to me, science is about defining useful categories that help us organize and systemitize our human experience in general. The HH Scale has been used for over 60 years now. It is very, very useful and has been used by hundreds of researchers who would all classify you as bisexual based on experience and feelings. They would probably also classify you as bisexual based on your feelings alone since they seem to shift, but Nick’s feelings seem to be solidly gay. I feel that sometimes we just have to use tools that allow us to describe common data even if they aren’t perfect. We really need to use the HH Scale.

    I use A, B, C, D and F to grade my students. On a universal 4 point scale I can determine something about all the graduate students who apply to our program from all over. Sure, it isn’t perfect. But it helps a great deal.

    Comment # 22 by Ron Schow | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply

23. Ron:

    I think you are wildly overstating things when you say the LDS data is “overwhelming”. All the LDS data we have suffer fatally, in my opinion, from both sampling and observational biases. You are stretching the available data too far.

    I have no objection to the questions you posted if the idea is that the prospective couple use those answers to calibrate their abilities and expectations. To be sure, of course, it would be great to develop follow.

    So far as the HH scale (reiterating your point that it’s just one of your dimensions) goes, it certainly is used quite widely and many find it useful. That, however, does not mean it’s been proven to be the best or only measure of homosexual attraction/orientation. It is still quite controversial, for instance see the recent plethysmograph study. I think there are serious problems with that study, so I don’t endorse it. I only cite it to point out there isn’t unanimity about the prevalence, or even existence, of bisexuality as a distinct phenomenon. Don’t overinterpret my hesitation to embrace it as outright opposition. I just try not to reach past what I know to be well-supported. Skepticism should be our default mode with any scientific research; and just because something is commonly believed does not mean it has been proved.

    I think the best way to demonstrate the scientific validity and reliability of the HH scale would be through a factor analysis. (They use this, for instance, to try to settle the debate about whether there’s one kind of general intelligence, or several constituent intelligences.) I am not aware of one that’s been done with Kinsey scale scores. If someone knows of one, I’d love to see it.

    Comment # 23 by Borealis | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply

24. Borealis

    First, let me note that you misquoted me. What I said was “I feel you are ignoring the logical implications from an overwhelming set of LDS and national data.” You inferred I was only speaking of LDS data. Having studied the two books that came from the Laumann, et al 1994 research, and the chapters on homosexuality therein, I don’t think you are on solid ground when you dismiss those national data.

    I must say I am quite puzzled by your approach to science. When I cite Laumann, et al on bisexuality, you seem to prefer talking about a twin study which is surely not a population probability sample. When I cite consistent findings reported by sources from opposite balancing points of view (NARTH and Affirmation) and they both report the high prevalence of 5s and 6s, you respond that these data suffer “fatally” from observational bias. In fact, the observational bias washes out when they both report the same finding. When I report consistent findings from key therapists on their hundreds of clients, and these are therapists from LDS Family Services and AMCAP, where we should be able to expect honest reporting of data, your answer is ..Oh, I don’t think it is that way, based on my impressions. I think your limited perspective is, in fact, very suspect. Perhaps fatal.

    Notice, for example, this quote from your post #18.

    “I’m not sure that sexual functioning is necessarily a problem among 5’s and 6’s …..I don’t think most reports, even retrospective ones, necessarily support this contention. ……So I don’t really think that MOM couples should automatically expect their marriages to be completely or mostly sexless.”

    BTW I don’t think the “completely or mostly sexless” was my comment???

    Notice what you said….

    You are “not sure” and you “don’t think”….and so you “don’t really think” etc. Do you have no respect whatever for seasoned active LDS therapists, one who has worked with over 1000 clients on this issue? Should we seriously consider your one or two examples and your sage advice when you say….

    “I just try not to reach past what I know to be well-supported. Skepticism should be our default mode with any scientific research”

    It honestly seems to me that you don’t have much basis for what you do believe, but you insist on being skeptical if I cite data.

    BTW, your bisexuality study you cited in the last post involved 30 bisexual men and 1/3 showed no sexual response at all, and many experienced researchers responded that the study was too crude and was flawed.

    I suggest you might feel some obligation to report some clear findings to support your various speculations. Otherwise, maybe we should pay some attention to the results I am reporting.

    I have published 3 studies using factor analysis and I’m pretty familiar with it. How you would use it in doing homosexuality research is not readily apparent to me. But vague plans about research “someone” else should do or find is not a substitute for coherent discussion. Until we have better data I suggest you give me some reason to ignore what I submit are conherent findings. You need to offer something more than “oh, that has a sampling flaw.” In short, what is the flaw?

    I hope I’m not being too hard on you. Smile. But being a skeptic is so easy. Where is YOUR LDS data?

    Comment # 24 by Ron Schow | Apr 27, 2007 | Reply

25. Where is YOUR LDS data?

    Ron, it is my impression that Latter-day Saints typically are supicious of non-LDS sources. We see this attitude when it concerns biblical studies and likewise some of the discussion on this thread leads me to believe that it may apply to scientific data as well. And if I am correct about this, I also wonder how forthright LDS researchers and therapists are about reporting their honest observations, particularly those which may seem to conflict with established church doctrine. While glancing over the “Summary of Data” section on your ldsresources web site, I noticed that one participant withdrew his report for “personal and professional reasons.” Not wishing to jump to any conclusions, is it your impression that LDS social scientists and therapists feel a need to temper the reports of their observations regarding homosexuality for fear of ecclesiastical or professional reprisals? Do you see a tendency for LDS sources to conform to the “Evergreen” line of thinking? I’m not trying to insinuate anything; I’m just curious what your observations have been.

    Comment # 25 by Steven B | Apr 28, 2007 | Reply

26. Steven B

    I agree with your assessment in that on this subject many of those who should be doing research are holding back. For example, a friend of mine, a doctoral student, submitted a project to the Human Subjects Committee at BYU. He went first to about 5 professors on campus who could have collaborated in his work based on their expertise in the family sciences, etc. None of them would work with him, although all of them indicated an interest in the findings. When the project was submitted, the Human Subjects Committee refused to let him do the project because they said no one on campus had any knowledge of homosexuality. I know this to be the case, since I saw the written feedback from the committee and subsequently got the project approved at my university. When a campus and a faculty of that size can claim to know nothing about a subject of this importance to so many members of the Church, there is something deeply amiss.

    I could tell other similar stories, but this represents the way in which most do not dare to work in this area apparently because it is so political.

    Comment # 26 by Ron Schow | Apr 29, 2007 | Reply

27. I just found this site surfing after reading Ron Schow’s article in Dialogue. Which, I have to admit, confounded me quite a bit. I’m in a MOM (as you call it) in it’s 15th year. We’ve experienced certain challenges and a rough patch or two, but I have a very healthy, fulfilling marriage. I look at other paths my life could have taken and I can’t imagine passing up the joy having a wife and children have been in my life.

    I’m very firmly a 5 or (more strongly) 6 on the Kinsey scale. I agree that getting married changes nothing in and of itself as far as attraction goes, but signing it off as Mr. Schow’s article suggests is very big and very misguided philosophy in my personal and spiritual experience. It’s clearly not for everyone, but marrying my wife is the very best decision I have ever made in my life.

    I don’t know what the leaning of this blog is and I don’t have any experience with it, but I’m open to dialogue should people care. I also agree that much more discussion is needed on this subject, Clearly there are a lot of people with a lot of different stories that need to be heard. I’m an attorney who has handled a good number of divorces (mostly straight folk, but at least 2 MOMs that I can think of) and my experience there tells me that the “MOM divorce = MOM’s don’t work” equation som eo fyou are spouting is a bit simplistic. Lots of factors break up marriages. What sex on is attracted to is certainly one of them, but as someone whose handled it successfully (and had to rebuild and reevaluate after a period of not handling it successfully) I think Mr. Schow’s circumstantial approch is deeply flawed and wrongheaded — with all due respect.

    E

    Comment # 27 by E | May 1, 2007 | Reply

28. Ron:

    The non-LDS data is better than the LDS data, but you used the word ‘AND”. So you are now suggesting that the national data somehow support the LDS data? I read that conjunction to mean that you felt they were both overwhelming, and that the national data supported your contention that homosexual marriages do not have a generally good prognosis. I don’t think the national data you cite support that contention. I didn’t talk about it there because I didn’t see it as relevant.

    The twin study I cited is also well sampled. Not, technically, randomly sampled, since Bailey et al sent their survey to the ENTIRE Australian twins registry. This is a good data set with acceptable levels of statistical significance. Laumann’s data are good too. I’m not sure what our disagreement is here; the NORC data is good, the twins data is good. They show different things, which can be explained in a variety of ways. What does this have to do with either of our larger points? Is it the question about the relative prevalence of bisexuality versus homosexuality? Neither study was really designed to measure that. And there are still many (including gay researchers–Bailey is one) who question whether, in men at least, bisexuality isn’t just sublimated homosexuality (thus the plethysmograph study I reluctantly cited–agree with what you say about its many flaws). Others believe (including Kinsey, who cited his very disturbing and ethically troubling case reports of orgasmic response among children in support of that) that we are born naturally bisexual, smack in the middle of the Kinsey scale– and then cultural factors push people into heterosexuality. For them, bisexuality is the most common “natural” state. To say there is a range of degree of sexual interest in men and/or women, as you do, is certainly the most common view, and one I don’t passionately disagree with anyway. But it does bother me when you characterize the question as settled when the question is far from settled. When I point out the study’s shortcomings and illustrate how their conclusions could be better supported with additional study designs, you accuse me of social science makework. (As if that’s a bad thing? You could easily award 5 or 6 pHd’s from our discussions here!) If our interest is really in learning more, in advancing knowledge–rather than finding grist for ideological mills of one sort of other–then that’s exactly what we need. If we’re just trying to score political points, we’ve got all the research we need. If we’re trying to get more light and knowledge, we have a lot more work to do.

    Do I have no respect for active LDSFS therapists who have seen thousands of patients? Sure. And their impressions count for something. Sure. But they are not free from bias. Their impressions are going to be influenced by those who have presented to them. On my mission I met a lot of Africans, and they were all highly educated, bright, and spiritual. Are ALL Africans highly educated, bright, and spiritual? I don’t think so; the ones I knewwere the cream of the crop because they had the opportunity to study at a university in the developed world. And if they were talking to me, they were of course going to be spiritual. And I got to know hundreds and hundreds of them on my mission. WhenI think of Africans now, I can’t help it, I think of bright, educated, and spiritual people.

    Let me elaborate on what I mean by fatal flaws in sampling and observational bias.

    First, to sampling. Ron, you are mistaken when you say that the “Evergreen/LDSFS” samples and the Affirmation samples are complimentary. Certainly, as you say, their points of view are. But in fact, we know anecdotally, quite a few of them are the SAME population, just different cohorts. There are a number of people in Affirmation who were once in LDSFS therapy, or attending Evergreen. There are also a number of people currently in Evergreen who were once in Affirmation. We have gays, ex-gays, ex-ex-gays, and ex-ex-ex gays. I don’t know any ex-ex-ex-ex gays, but give me time and I probably can.

    You can’t just say that just because they come from different ideological points of view that the samples somehow match up. At the very least, we’d need demographic data from each sample and then adjust it to reflect the population averages. Sadly, the baseline demographic data don’t even exist for us to know how far off these studies’ samples are, and the studies themselves don’t report much of it either. And are there really only TWO points of view? There are people who present for therapy at LDSFS. There are people who show up at Affirmation conferences. Do you really insist that this represents the full range of possible experience? Might there be people who have done neither? Well, how many? I know there are some. I can’t prove how many, but neither can you. You seem to feel that if we could find such people it wouldn’t materially change your conclusions. You can’t prove that scientifically.

    Observational bias can have a huge effect. Compare the two twins studies. The first came from ads in a gay magazine, and it showed that 50% of the time, a gay twin had a gay brother. Bailey repeats it using a nonbiased (or at least, less biased, since response rate was not 100%) population selection and finds the rate is less than half that. That’s huge. You wouldn’t think that a simple thing as what kind of magazine you read would affect the sexual orientation of your twin brother. For whatever reason, it had a huge effect.

    Now, what do I mean by retrospective bias? Take a well-known example from personality psychology. Get two people in a room, and randomly assign them each either the pro or con position on a topic. Have them debate each other for a few minutes. Then ask them after the debate which position they “actually” truly believe. The majority of the subjects will insist that they actually believe in position they were RANDOMLY assigned to argue. The inference is, people want to believe they’re rational actors even when they’re purely the victims of chance. You see it when you ask dieters to report what they eat. You see it when they ask breast cancer patients how much fat they consumed in their diets, and lung cancer victims are known to exaggerate the amount they smoked, if you ask them after their diagnosis. Related to these are observational and recall bias, which Ron’s studies would also suffer from.

    How much would these affect the outcome of Ron’s results? I don’t know. Perhaps the best we can say is, if you want your MOM marriage to succeed, stay away from LDSFS therapists and, even more, Affirmation conferences. But then we all know correlation isn’t causation, right?

    Ron, you’ve done the best you can with the data you’ve collected.. But it’s not “overwhelming,” I’m sorry. The most I’ll give you is “tentative” or “suggestive”. It’s not confined to your research at all; it’s a well known and thorny problem throughout mental health research, so don’t take what I have to say personally. Just look at any study that tries to compare one therapy type with another (drugs versus talk therapy, cognitive versus psychoanalytic) for the treatment of any mental disorder, say depression. Wade through the thicket of contradictory and confusing results spanning literally decades and you’ll come away humbled. This stuff does get sorted out, but it takes a long time and lots of work before you get to use words like “overwhelming”.

    Comment # 28 by Borealis | May 1, 2007 | Reply

29. Borealis,
    Noting your use of “we” above, has your pseudonym been hiding an affiliation with Evergreen? If so, might you have your own bias?

    Just how many studies ARE there about the effects of playing basketball on sexual orientation, anyway?

    Comment # 29 by Nick Literski | May 1, 2007 | Reply

30. Ron, did I overreach when I used the word sexless? Should I have said “unfulfilling” instead? Your data certainly do include examples from MOM couples who went years without sex, or who had at times rather, ahem, strong reactions to heterosexual sex in their marriages. If you want me to say unfulfilling or some other adjective, that’s okay by me. Just give me the adjective.

    Another big problem is we have this information presented to us in a vacuum. We need contex, and comparison.

    If we could assess sexual functioning/fulfillment in currently intact MOMs, then we could compare that to LDS heteroxexual couples ratings of the same. Then we’d know it was worse than average. Laura Brotherson has made quite a career out of what she calls “good girl syndrome” which, she believes, affects healthy sexual expression in LDS marriage. She’s not got the best credentials, so maybe we don’t accept her judgment on this. I don’t know of any research on it myself. It’s certainly possible that the phenomenon Ron has observed is just an exaggerated manifestation of something at work (albeit to a lesser degree) in the larger population. And is it related to the very common problem of pornography in LDS heterosexual marriages?

    Another point of comparision we need to make is with the relationships divorced homosexual men have now. People will read Ron’s data and conclude that it’s the MOM marriage that was the problem. But could those relationship problems carry over into subsequent relationships? Could the problem be with one or both of the people in the relationship? If so, it would dramatically affect the clinical recommendations/conclusions we might draw. I can’t find where Ron has asked his subjects about that and compiled the results. One conclusion people will draw from Ron’s study (whether he wants them to or not) is, if you have strong homosexual feelings, or are marrying someone with strong homosexual feelings, stay away from a MOM. If we find the same sort of instability in subsequent relationships, then the advice we might give would be, work on various relationship skills–the gender of your current or future partner may be less important than the relationship skills you are bringing or need to build. One of my therapists said to me once (truthfully but unkindly), “the one common denominator in all your failed relationships is you.” (Check out that link, I think you’ll enjoy it.)

    Comment # 30 by Borealis | May 1, 2007 | Reply

31. Borealis

    No, my friend, the national data (Laumman, et al) as I said in the beginning, support the contention that there are several times more with fewer signs of homosexual orientation as compared to those with strong homosexual feelings (self identified). And, I’m sorry, I’m just not persuaded that the twin study (even though you clearly love it a lot) is even close to a substitute for a population probability sample of the whole USA as found in Laumann, et al. 1994. Not even close.

    I note that you continue to be dismissive toward the 800+ NARTH clients and the 1000+ clients from LDSFS and the hundreds from the past president of AMCAP, where the data are very consistent in showing bisexuals have fewer problems and the 5s and 6s have major problems. And, yes, you can suggest some possible bias in these very consistent findings produced by LDS professionals involved in this work for decades. But in the meantime you STILL HAVE PRESENTED NO LDS DATA OF YOUR OWN to counter the obvious implications of what I have presented.

    So, yes, if you want to say the findings I present are “suggestive” that is fine. Until you have something more than your anecdotal observations from your therapist, and your multiple complaints that what I present is not perfect, I hope the readers of this blog will sense that you really don’t have much to offer but criticism.

    I do agree with you that we need to know more and we should continue to study the issue. In the meantime, until you have some data, I suggest that what I have presented is pretty substantial…..oh er…and suggestive.

    Good luck in gathering your data….

    Comment # 31 by Ron Schow | May 1, 2007 | Reply

32. E

    I hope that a more careful reading of my article and what I’ve written in this blog will help you understand that I am pleased to hear of your happiness.

    I have tried to avoid a simplistic formula. I have emphasized that even though you are a 5 or 6 on the HH Scale, which suggests caution when you consider marriage, nevertheless, issues of sublimation/libido/compatibility/maturity can compensate and make an MOM feasible and successful. My feeling is that if your marriage is going so very well then there are a number of these other issues which seem to be working in your favor as a couple.

    I too know about a few good MOM marriages like yours, but based on reports from LDS therapists who have seen not just one or two but hundreds of such marriages, we need to be cautious and give our LDS youth good information. I suppose you have heard the recent reports on the MOM under discussion in the Dialogue article you read.

    I wish you continued happiness.

    Comment # 32 by Ron Schow | May 1, 2007 | Reply

33. Thanks for the good wishes. Perhaps we aren’t far off, because I agree that a fair amount of caution is warranted. However, the overwhelming impression I took away from your dialogue article (and I’ve re-read it to be certain of my impressions) is an impression that leaves very little room (if any) for marriage. I think that putting such a strong emphasis on the single factor of sexual attraction ignores a litany of other traits that are arguably much more important in marriage. In that sense, my marriage is no different than many others–straight and otherwise–where sexual attraction isn’t a significant bonding factor. That’s not to say we don’t have a healthy sexual intimacy–different gender attractions have not prevented a mutually healthy sex life in my case–to be blunt–and I have no visual sexual attraction to women at all. That’s never changed, and frankly, it’s really not a big deal.

    In any event. I was concerned that your article seems so discouraging of the idea based on that factor and observed statistics. I think there are many, many relationships like mine. We don’t shout them from the rooftops because we have children we want to protect. If there is any under reporting it seems to me that it is not the number of failed LDS MOMs, but successful ones. This is not a battle I want to fight at the expense of my family… and from the brief readings I’ve done here and glimpsed at affirmation, etc. it appears that it can be a very ugly, nasty battle indeed. Many of us just want to try our best to live the life we choose.

    Lastly, I did see that Mr. Christensen appears to have chosen to divorce and try a new path. I wish him well. But marriage isn’t easy for anyone–I don’t think one “high profile” example proves the rule. A few years ago, I made the same decision that he appears to have made and the experiences I had at that time and since have convinced me that my initial decision to marry was a far better one–given a few years he may or may not agree with me. Life works in strange ways. His story, like many others may be interesting to watch.

    E

    Comment # 33 by E | May 1, 2007 | Reply

34. To clarify on my last paragraph, I didn’t divorce, but I did choose the path Mr. Christensen appears to be taking for a while. Aside from the inevitable, painful consequential strings that follow such a decision, it was a positive one for me personally–meaning that choosing a homosexual lifestyle turned out to be a very viable, satisfying opportunity for me. But rather than confirm that I had made the wrong lifestyle choice when I married, I found that it only confirmed (1) my attraction preference (which was obvious to me from the beginning anyway) and (2) that the many benefits of my relationship with my wife were far more significant than the freedom and more direct sexual satisfaction that I gained at that time. It also confirmed that my wife is completely awesome.

    Comment # 34 by E | May 1, 2007 | Reply

35. E

    OK…..let’s play with your idea that there are 100s more like you, they just don’t want to speak up.

    If there are a hundred LDS guys with homosexual attraction, national data make it pretty clear that 70-80% are 1,2,3,4s on the HH Scale. Only 20-30% will self identify–indicating to me they are the most gay.

    My premise is that in LDS culture nearly all guys get married, which means nearly all the guys getting married who have homosexual attraction are 1,2,3,4s. AND YET, when the married guys with homosexuat attraction show up in therapy or at Evergreen, about 70-80% are 5s and 6s, when they should only be 20-30% of the ones who got married. That says to me, yes. A lot of guys with homosexual attraction get married and stay married……the 1,2,3,4s. And they think, oh, I had those feelings but I got married and look everything is A OK. A bunch of them are church leaders and nice gentle guys. They think everybody is just like me. They think others can get married and manage this just like I did.

    BUT, with the 5s and 6s, it is not so easy. A lot of them get married and can’t even consummate the marriage on the wedding night.

    Nearly half the guys who call Evergreen for help are married. And our data on therapy indicate nearly all of them are 5s and 6s.

    So there you have it. I agree there are a lot of LDS bisexual and gay guys who get married and those who are 1s, 2s, 3s, and most of the 4s do just fine. It is the 5s and 6s, who end up leaving their marriages…like you did…even if just fcr a short time. They are the ones who find sex with men much more appealing, as you did. But as you say, the compatibility and maturity and a family life with children in a marriage to a woman might bring them back to the woman.

    Comment # 35 by Ron Schow | May 2, 2007 | Reply

36. I don’t think we have any disagreement that men with a “lower degree” of homosexual orientation are going to have less trouble in a MOM.

    My point was that, at some point a gay LDS man’s life, even if he is a 5 or 6, it’s entirely conceivable and reasonable that he can find a compatible female companion and have a very happy and healthy relationship since there are so many other things that make a marriage–that principle isn’t unique to MOM marriages. I don’t argue that an MOM shouldn’t be recommended for everyone, but I go back to my main point that I think recommending that no 5 or 6’s marry is just as damaging as recommending that all 5 or 6’s marry. I just think it whould be a very serious decision and, frankly, I think it requires a bit of divine intervention in the first place.

    My marriage went off kilter when my wife and I both stopped discussing my homosexual issues as a regular part of our conversations and I stopped living by LDS principles in ways unrelated to my homosexual desires. Then the problems later became more focused on the sexuality issue. The attraction clearly was a factor, but it wasn’t the only one. That was my immaturity on several levels, and a brief excursion that I’d have been happier skipping in hindsight.

    I’ve always assumed there were others like me. No one has ever asked me to participate in any poll. Based on certain early church experiences, I didn’t trust many of my church leaders to have the ability or disposition to deal with my attraction — another signifcant problem that needs to be addressed — so they didn’t have my info. I’ve never had any association with Evergreen or any similar group, so no reporting there. I never would have identified as gay to anyone else had they asked (anonymously or not)–that was the cardinal rule of my life then. My wife was the first person I ever told (while we were dating in college) and I didn’t tell anyone else for years. I even randomly ended up with a roommate in college who was gay (an off the charts, effeminate and out 6) whom I never told. If someone had really pressed, I’m sure the most I ever would have conceived conceding was “having had some thoughts”, which someone would have then taken as a 2 or 3. I believe that many people never feel free to be honest, even with themselves or with professionals on many occassions. I had supposed I wasn’t alone in my martial situation, but maybe I am. On the other hand it’s hard to believe that my situation is entirely unique.

    In short, it seemed like your article gave no room for the prospect for people in my situation and implied that it wouldn’t work–and I guess I get a little testy than I should when I see an implicit denial that I, my wife, and my children exist.

    Comment # 36 by E | May 2, 2007 | Reply

37. Add a smilie to the end of that last post. It wasn’t meant to be a bit tongue in cheek.

    Comment # 37 by E | May 2, 2007 | Reply

38. “was meant” — Clearly not my best typing day.

    Comment # 38 by E | May 2, 2007 | Reply

39. E

    I certainly believe there are others who have marriages like yours.

    As I understand it, Evergreen gets 60 calls a month from men like you. They get over 300 calls every month. 150 from family/bishops, etc— 150 from those with homosexual attraction. Of the 150 with personal issues, 40% are from gay married men. That is about 60 a month.

    I believe E, that in telling your story you have reinforced my message. Marriages like yours are high risk marriages. Your wife weathered the storm and the marriage has survived so far. But what a storm !!!

    Marriages to 5s and 6s appear to have many more stresses than marriages that are not MOMs.

    Comment # 39 by Ron Schow | May 3, 2007 | Reply

40. I appreciate the conversation and I think we can agree that a MOM for a 5 or 6 has many more risks related to the issue of homosexual attraction than for a 1-4. I think that’s a very important principle that’s worthy of respect. That in itself deserves a serious pause for those considering it.

    Hovwever, having represented parties in well over 200 divorces, I know that any difficulties my marriage has had due to my homosexual attraction issues (which really were sexual addiction isues–much more dangerous, straight or gay) were considerably less than difficulties other marriages have over money, heterosexual sexual issues, selfishness, drug addiction, work addiction, lack of communication, lack of maturity, Mars/Venus issues (for lack of a better term), etc. It’s just one factor of many. A big factor, I agree, but not in itself a determinative reason to never even consider marrying when a compatiable partner is available, willing, and educated about the issue. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that issue, I suppose.

    As for my marraige being “high risk”… I should tell you that divorce has never been on the table in our marriage. Neither of us has ever considered ending the relationship–we discuss our marriage frequently–it’s never been a desirable option for either of us. We really like being married. It’s the single best thing I’ve done in my life. It’s a separate issue from the attraction. That may be difficult for some to understand, and I’m not going to give my full story on a web page. The “storm” that we weathered was one that was discussed before and after by both of us–my world view and my sense of who I was were certainly threatened–but my marriage was not. We both understood that this was my issue and not something she was responsible for. My wife will tell you that it was far harder on me than it was on her. Had I taken advantage of any kind of therapy, outside advice, lack of secrecy, or any other outside resource other than myself, it never would have happened. It was a blip on the radar.

    MOMs are very much not for everyone. But, it’s the path for me. I’ve had countless logical, intellectual, and spiritual confirmations of that. Every little bit of me shudders to think what I would have missed by taking another one. I have friends who have taken various other paths and I am grateful, and humbled, and estatic to be blessed enough to be on the path that I am.

    E

    Comment # 40 by E | May 3, 2007 | Reply

41. Okay, somebody here is buying into the nonsense that is spewed by NARTH and Evergreen. Homosexuality is not a “sexual addiction issue.” If a gay man remains closeted, and tries to satisfy his sexual desires in unhealthy ways, then yes, he may develop sexual addictions, but those are entirely separate from the fact that the man is gay.

    A good friend of mine joined the LDS church, convinced that “Jesus” would “fix” him and make him straight. He married an LDS woman and had children. Unfortunately, he tried to satisfy his desires by activities outside the marriage. His bishop condemned him, telling him he was worse than an “animal” (after all, that bishop “knew” that homosexuality didn’t exist in the animal world–LOL!). It’s certainly reasonable to say that this man developed a sexual addiction, because he was trying to meet a need through unhealthy means, over and over. He finally attempted suicide. Finally, however, he put an end to his addiction—by coming out of the closet, and divorcing. He has also sought to have his name removed from the records of the LDS church, though it has taken several months with repeated delays by local leaders who aren’t following the General Handbook of Instructions. He has taken charge of his life, earns six figures, and tends to be a good deal more responsible in day to day life than I am. He has accepted the fact that he is gay, and embraced that “core characteristic” of himself. Now that he is satisfying his needs in healthier ways, his cycle of addictive behavior has long since ended.

    Don’t buy into this “homosexuality is a sexual addiction” crap. It’s unsupported rhetoric from religionists, who are desperate to find some way to explain homosexuality without admitting that it’s a normal part of creation.

    Comment # 41 by Nick Literski | May 3, 2007 | Reply

42. WOW….I just read something remarkable! As some are aware, the PBS Frontline production on “The Mormons” has adjunct material online, including the full text of interviews done for the program (yet they also say they are edited???). Elder Marlin K. Jensen made the following statement, which I think is a first for leadership:

    “And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we’re not asking more of them than we’re asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they’re going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn’t have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing.”

    How wonderful to hear a general authority admit that this “same for everyone” argument is spurious!

    Comment # 42 by Nick Literski | May 3, 2007 | Reply

43. Nick. You misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m perfectly capable of separating same sex attraction from sexual addiction. I’ve dealt with both of them. This is not a NARTH / Evergreen or a “pray until you’re cured” thing–I know very little about them beyond their existence. My addiction is under control. My homosexual attraction remains. I’m not closeted — if people ask me if I’m gay (which, frankly would be rude so it doesn’t really come up) I’ll tell them. My marriage is great–leaving it would be nonsensical to me. Please don’t jump to conclusions about people–we’re all quite different despite our common sexual attraction preference (unlike all those heterosexuals–they’re all exactly the same).

    Didn’t you use to have a “temple page” with pictures of the temples? I enjoyed that site. I liked to quote on the documentary too (and BYU’s new policy) — some people are starting to get it.

    E

    Comment # 43 by E | May 3, 2007 | Reply

44. E

    Actually, I think there is a reasonable amount of agreement between us. In looking at the 200 divorces you have worked with there are many issues you mention that were crucial to the outcome of the marriage. Rather than list all of those I simply referred to compatibility and maturity issues.

    You said

    “I appreciate the conversation and I think we can agree that a MOM for a 5 or 6 has many more risks related to the issue of homosexual attraction than for a 1-4. I think that’s a very important principle that’s worthy of respect. That in itself deserves a serious pause for those considering it.”

    Thanks for your effort to understand part of what I’m saying. When you consider libido/sublimation along with sexual orientation you have some measures which reflect on that part of a marriage. But as you stress there are many other compatibility/maturity issues in a marriage. These have the potential to compensate for or magnify the sexual difference issues. When sex is working in a marriage, I think it has the potential to smooth off some rough spots and it becomes a bonus to a couple to help them through some rough times.

    One thing you may not be aware of is that same sex relationships can be quite magical, even as a marriage can be. There can be many satisfactions and the same kind of working together that you find in a marriage. If you have enough gay friends, you can begin to see that people are people and couple strengths appear in the homosexual AND in the heterosexual community.

    Comment # 44 by Ron Schow | May 4, 2007 | Reply

45. I agree we are not far off. And I have g