HeatherN salutes Mormon husband and father Josh Weed for his honesty about being gay but choosing to marry and have children with a woman, without condemning others who choose differently.
Back in the middle of June this year, I wrote an article about a Catholic gay man who was living a life of celibacy because he viewed his same-sex attraction as a sort of burden to overcome. My response was one of pity and great sadness.
Today, I’m writing about a gay Mormon man who is married to a woman, and my reaction is entirely different. Josh Weed is the Mormon man I’m talking about and you can read his article, here. Now, you may be wondering what the difference is; I’ll try to explain.
From Weed’s article, I get the feeling that this is a man who fully embraces every aspect of his identity. He is Mormon and he is gay. He says as much throughout the article. That acceptance, I think, is what changes this story from something worth pitying, to something worth celebrating. In much the same way queer people throughout history are rejecting the heteronormative scripts society sets out for them; Weed is rejecting the scripts that society has set for him. He is not self-loathing and therefore in a sham marriage, struggling with his religion. Similarly, though, he is not shucking his faith either. He’s forging his own way.
There’s a quote I want to share with you that I think sums this up pretty well:
“About two years ago, I saw a psychologist to get medication for my ADHD-I. She was a lesbian…She spoke of a girl, whom she considered her daughter, who is the biological child of her ex-lover, with whom she lived for only three years. She told me of how much she loved her daughter, but how infrequently she got to see her. And eventually, when talking about my sex life, she said “well, that’s good you enjoy sex with your wife, but I think it’s sad that you have to settle for something that is counterfeit.”
I was a little taken aback by this idea—I don’t consider my sex-life to be counterfeit. In response, I jokingly said “and I’m sorry that you have to settle for a counterfeit family.” She immediately saw my point and apologized for that comment. Obviously, I don’t actually think a family with non-biological members is counterfeit in any way. I also don’t feel that my sex-life is counterfeit. They are both examples of something that is different than the ideal.”
Now where I have some trouble with Weed’s article is when he talks about the concept that a family with biological children is “ideal.” Does he mean that society considers them ideal, but that such a family is still just as healthy as a family without biological children? I think he does, but it’s not quite clear. Another problem is the way he seems to say that acting on same-sex attraction is somehow a sin. He says, “Sin is in action, not in temptation or attraction,” and that is a problematic statement. It’s too close to the ‘hate the sin, lover the sinner,’ frame of mind, for my liking.
But mostly what I’m left with after reading Weed’s article is the general theme of love: love yourself and love others. That, I think, is where Christianity and queer culture can overlap quite a bit…along with The Beatles, of course.
Image of basic family courtesy of Shutterstock
About HeatherN
Not sure this is worth celebrating -there appears to be some probable dishonesty or self-denial in this arrangement. Granted I don’t have the details, but what about this fellow’s wife? How is she content to be partner to a marriage where she will never have her husband’s desire? Barring some truly novel and equitable mutual understanding, I’m guessing she’s likely engaged in this relationship under false pretenses, non-consent, or self-denial -none of which can come from a good place.
Tsk tsk…gotta read through the article before making that assumption.
Weed told his now-wife that he was gay on their first date. She writes about it partway through the article. Perhaps I should have explicitly included that in the article, but I couldn’t quite figure out how to include it without making the article too long.
They are both completely aware of and accept that Weed is a gay man. Even reading the first couple of paragraphs of his article sort of shows how they aren’t actually in any type of denial.
I read it, part 6 speaks to her perception directly. Looks like their relationship and outlook is heavily influenced by their religious doctrine. I’m going to chalk this up to religious fervor induced self-denial.
That is completely ignoring their agency and the fact that they both are totally NOT in self-denial. You don’t have to agree with their decision, but please respect the fact that they both made their decisions knowingly.
hmm….in my experience religious fervor and independent agency are often mutually exclusive ideas. They could have arrived at this place independent of their church, but I highly doubt it.
I’m a little confused about how you can celebrate that he’s living within his beliefs, and at the same time have a problem with those beliefs in the Old/New Testament, and possibly the Book of Mormon (I’ve only skimmed it), that also proscribe homosexual acts as sin.
For a more extreme analogy, it’s like congratulating a disadvantaged person for getting a promotion in a company that tortures kittens for money.
Good for them. If they’re happy and their relationship is stable then it’s not for us to judge whether he’d be happier in a relationship with a man.
Not that I’m any kind of fan, but didn’t Andrea Dworkin marry a gay guy?
“Not that I’m any kind of fan, but didn’t Andrea Dworkin marry a gay guy?”
I have no idea. I don’t follow Dworkin…like, at all.
This isn’t…progressive at all. I suppose you could be happy this way, but that isn’t the point, is it? The point is that such religions as this condemn homosexuality to such an extreme degree that to hold on to these views a gay man is willing to marry a straight woman so he doesn’t fall out of line in that faith. I find that inherently troubling, that instead of challenging his own religious faith, he instead chooses to concede to something that is innately harmful.
I think it’s possible for it to be a true choice, to act within the confines of a religious community and according to personally held beliefs, even if that choice is to consciously not act upon a desire, and to do that as a life long commitment. It’s not the choice I would make, but I don’t need to argue the case for it to this guy. He seems to have done that work, already. It looks like someone else’s idea of freedom.
Exactly. The only problem I have is what seems to be the continued treatment of actually having a homosexual relationship as a sin.
But we must understand *why* this man decided to marry a woman and have children. It is because of the religious framework with which he was brought up, a framework that says any alternative would be unacceptable. Ah, congratulations Mr. Weed for ceding to religious compulsion! Congratulations for sublimating your desires and being able to do so without suffering from depression.
I am not criticizing Josh Weed here. I am criticizing the absurd notion that we should congratulate moral constraints on individual will. This is the kind of attitude that Ayn Rand so scornfully mocked in the Fountainhead:
“Your life doesn’t belong to you, Peter, if you’re really aiming high. You can’t allow yourself to indulge every whim, as ordinary people can, because with them it doesn’t matter anyway . . . It takes strength to deny yourself in order to win other people’s respect.”
Let’s not deny ourselves, shall we?
This is why I drew that parallel to the Catholic guy I wrote about last month. Now, I don’t know, because all I’ve got to go on is their writing…but…based on that, it seems to me that the Catholic guy was, actually, allowing moral constraints on his individual will. His outlook was one of struggling with a burden, of trying to force himself to fit a mould he didn’t actually fit…and if that didn’t work, at least deny himself the chance to live in the way he did fit (i.e. if he couldn’t have a wife he’d at least be celibate).
On the other hand, Weed is actually doing the exact opposite. He has exercised his individual will and lives his life by a different set of priorities than I would. Sexual desire is not high on his or his wife’s list of priorities. Intimacy and emotional connection and a healthy sex life stemming from that, well those are high on his priorities and he’s achieved them. Plus his faith, desire for a biological family, and his wish to continue to be able to practice his religion; those are the “whims” Weed is indulging in.
Not to mention, even without religion, we all have moral constraints on our individual will…it’s called socialization. That’s what makes it so that we’re able to interact with each other. My view of Weed’s life is basically a reflection on my perspective of cultural and moral relativism…I wrote an article about it, which I’m going to link to now…
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/headscarves-and-men-holding-hands-coming-out-as-a-cultural-relativist/
Now, if you want to talk about the Mormon church as an institution and how it treats homosexuality, well then I’m much more of the opinion it’s a big problem…because that is actually harming people.
This is where we differ—I am not a moral relativist, and I have quite a few problems with moral relativism. (See Sam Harris’s excellent book, “The Moral Landscape.”)
You write that he values “intimacy and emotional connection” more than sexual desire. I would like make two rather obvious points. First, intimacy and emotional connection are no less possible with a gay couple, and second, sexual attraction often strengthens emotional connection.
I think you misinterpreted my understanding of moral constraints. Of course constraints on individual will are necessary! They allow society to cohere and maintain stability. While I think it’s healthy that Mr. Weed is conscious of these constraints, I don’t think ceding to these constraints is itself laudable. Many moral constraints are unhealthy and counterproductive.
Let us think for a moment about why sexual desire is not “high on his priorities.” Could it be that his desires are not his own, that they have been given to him by religion? In every case, the norms and values of the collective consciousness are passed on to the next generation and indoctrinated in the youth. (Talcott Parsons calls this process of socialization “latent pattern maintenance.”)
How noble Mr. Weed is for wanting to practice his religion! How honorable he is for wanting a biological family! How courageous his effort to seek a place in the afterlife, earn God’s graces, and prevent his own punishment! Again, I do not blame Mr. Weed; I think he is the victim of a cruel form of socialization.
I don’t think it’s possible to separate the Mormon church “as an institution” and Mormonism as a religion. Both treat homosexuality as a sin, both ask gay individuals to sublimate their own desires.
“First, intimacy and emotional connection are no less possible with a gay couple, and second, sexual attraction often strengthens emotional connection.”
I guess you’d have to have read my other stuff to realize I don’t think they are less possible. I also don’t think that sexual attraction and emotional connection are mutually exclusive by any means. Hell, I’m a lesbian myself and I would totally never make the choices Weed does. I could never be in a relationship with someone I’m not sexually attracted to…and similarly I could never be in a relationship with someone I’m not emotionally connected to. I’m just saying, that for everyone the two don’t necessarily have to go hand in hand. Weed’s placed a value on one over the other, and so in his relationship whether he is sexually attracted or not seems not to matter as much to him.
And your somewhat sarcastic statements of praise for Weed…yes that is exactly my thoughts for the Catholic guy who is practising celibacy that I wrote about. Rather, I agree that in the case of the celibate guy it is a form of very cruel socialization.
But Weed’s isn’t, I don’t think. He made a choice within a social framework, and as you said that is what we all do. I don’t agree with his choice, but I respect that he made it without being blinded by his social and cultural norms. He and his wife seem to know full well what they are doing.
And I’m not trying to separate the Mormonism isn’t “religion” and “institution,” exactly (though I do think that there is certainly a very complicated Mormon culture that exists outside of it’s religious beliefs. Check here for an interesting look at that). What I am saying is that you can separate individual Mormons from the institution of the church (much the same way you can with any religion).
So for anyone interested: the story of Benji Schwimmer (from So You Think You Can Dance) is sort of what really opened up my mind about how to think about lgbt people who also fully believe in a religion that discriminates against lgbt people. Here’s a link to a really good interview he did. It’s wicked long, but I think pretty worth it. If you just want the most relevant bit, I’d suggest starting on part 3:
http://mormonstories.org/350-352-dance-champion-benji-schwimmer/