Wow, I have to say that many of you just sound ignorant of reality. But I guess that should not surprise me since this is a conservative blog.
I will post my original post so that you all have that perspective as well. Although I know nothing will change your perspectives on the "gay/equality" issue.
I do find it interesting that all of you and she will hide behind alias names. If you really are so brave and righteous then why hide?
For the record, Janna Darnelle Finkbeiner Anderson, is a real person and happens to be my ex-wife. I will not comment on all of the points of her blog due to the multitude of errors (like, I have full custody, because I don't) and a very subjective view of history and reality, but I would like to add a few thoughts to the discussion.
1. Like most, my coming out was a very complicated process of self discovery and of learning what truth and authenticity really are. I never felt that I was living in denial or a lie, but rather sexuality was a choice and I must be bisexual. I was part of a conservative subculture that not only promoted this dogma, but also created an atmosphere of fear. I did meet a man in my mid-30s and for the first time fell in love and experienced what unconditional acceptance and love was. Through this I could no longer remain in my marriage.
2. Fear is a very powerful emotion and to be honest has a crippling effect. I was a part-time pastor and our life revolved around church life and serving the lord. I was in fear of losing everything I knew: my friends, my job, and my kids. This reality did come true, except for losing my kids. I am glad that never happened.
3. My kids are thriving and doing very well emotionally and academically in spite of living in two completely different households having two parents with very different worldviews.
4. For the last 7 years I have wished my ex-wife would embrace her god and faith and find a way to move on and heal from the pains of the past. Unfortunately this has not happened.
And Like most of the comments it seems that the Church and Christians have no concept of love, acceptance, redemption, or of scripture.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
There was no wholeness and balance in her own marriage from its very inception.
Also, what does a "transgender baseball game" look like? Do the players attempt to bat with gloves,and field balls with their bats instead?
"If you love someone, set them free." - Sting
This woman "mentors others whose families have been impacted by homosexuality." (At the end of the article.)
Spreading the denial, spreading the crazy, spreading malinformation.
Needless to say, it's quite a different, and less histrionic narrative.
If she loved him, it's possible she wanted to help him make healthy sexual choices instead of those he did.
But if a spouse is a drug addict, alcoholic or the in this case a sexual deviant unwilling to help themselves sometimes for the sake of yourself and your children you have to make the tough choice.
Why she was unable to do so is anyone's guess.
Nope. I'm sure that's not the answer. The answer is to further ostracize gay people. That will solve the problem.
I do feel sorry for her--the guy used to be a pastor! A pastor's wife usually must be super-religious, or at least prepared to fake it. To go from that expectation to having her kids brought to LGBT events--well, I can see where it would be a major paradigm shift for her.
You didn't read very carefully. The ex was unable to choose his and his families welfare over his deviance. Absolutely "the Jannas of the world' should divorce under such circumstances.
And his behavior post divorce suggest a profoundly selfish unfit parent who shouldn't be trusted unsupervised with children.
Now, what has that to do gay so called marriage?
Oh and fyi- 'gay people' (more accurately those who've chosen a homosexual lifestyle) deserve happiness as much as anyone else.
And their best chance at it is to seek a healthy lifestyle over their deviance. I wouldn't advise a hungry man to eat bark for his happiness. Our bodies simply don't work that way. And I wouldn't advise a man or woman to engage in homosexual behavior for happiness- for the sane reason.
The reality is that diverse families - families with gay people, families muddling through after someone dies, families without legitimacy, families with remarriages, shotgun families, families with more than 2 parents - have always been normal. Having two parents who were married before you showed up and who stay alive and married until you're an adult is both historically and presently a minority situation. Conservative narratives always present family diversity as a narrative involving a "natural family" shattered by the evil forces of divorce and/or gay rights!! That 'natural' includes the disruptive forces of violence, sickness and death seems to elude them.
Even she doesn't claim either of those things happens. She claims they were at adult parties at which alcohol was served (which might be weird in Mormon communities but is normal elsewhere) and that there is someone who lives in the condo complex who sees a prostitute. (Which is probably true of most condo complexes.)
By the way, my parents served alcohol at their grown-up parties. So that's child abuse now?
Explains his pitiful obsession with Dan Savage and his family as well.
LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!
@21: "Our bodies simply don't work that way."
THE FUCK YOU KNOW.
See, Seattleblues, there is a part of the brain called the amygdala, which is responsible for a bunch of rather primal drives, including aggression, sexual attraction, memory, and emotional responses. (Technically two parts of the brain, since there's one in each hemisphere.) There are stark and consistent variations between the sexes; a trained neurologist could tell just by looking at the amygdala whether the brain is that of a man or a woman.
Except, of course, for queer people! The amygdalae of homosexual men are similar to those of heterosexual women, and the amygdalae of homosexual women are similar to those of heterosexual men! This makes perfect sense, given that the sexual preference of a homosexual is, by definition, similar to that of a heterosexual of the opposite gender, and the amygdala is WELL KNOWN to be involved in sexual attraction. So no, YOUR body doesn't work that way, but SOME people's bodies do.
Could it be coincidence, you might wonder? NOT FUCKING LIKELY. When researchers treated fetal/infant rats in such a way as to alter the suprachiasmatic nucleus (part of the hypothalamus, another part of the brain with variations associated with sexual orientation) to be more like those of gay men, the adult rats turned out bisexual. I told you about that experiment OVER TWO YEARS AGO, along with other studies showing a clear link between neurological variations and sexual orientation, and you ignored it then. Just like I bet you'll ignore it now, because your opinions must be right, the facts be damned!
I have a cousin, whom I have mentioned a few times, who is lesbian. Her parents were hostile when she first came out, but came to accept her for who she is fairly quickly. She and her partner have been happily in a long-term relationship for, oh gosh, close to a decade now, and they have two elementary school-age sons together. (Each is the biological mother of one of their sons.) The boys are perfectly well-adjusted and about as masculine as you'd expect of guys of their age; last I spent time with them, one was obsessed with dinosaurs and the other with trucks.
Do you honestly believe my cousin would be better off if she'd married (and possibly had kids with) some guy she wasn't attracted to and didn't love? Fuck sake, Seattleblues.
Seattleblues doesn't honestly anything.
Someone needs to create a chrome extension that just turns all of his posts into the word "hodor" on repeat. It'd be much more informative and better for our souls.
A trans*man who may be able to carry a child and his cisgender gay male husband would be able to "create a gay family naturally" by Janna D's definition.
A trans*man who may be able to carry a child and his cisgender gay male husband would be able to "create a gay family naturally" by Janna D's definition.
"Daddy, I'm in love with a man. You might call him a sexual deviant, Daddy, but he really wants to help himself and to make healthy choices. And, because I love him, I really want to help him make those healthy choices. And he's asked me to marry him, and I said 'yes.' We're planning a June wedding. He's so excited about helping me choose the floral arrangments."
So...what would you do, Seattleblues? In the interest of helping society achieve a greater level of stability and a lesser level of deviance, would you happily consent to your daughter's marriage to the recovering homosexual and pay the tab for the wedding? Or would you say, "Honey, I really think you'd be better off finding somebody straight"?
I await your answer with bated breath.
Really David? Where? Please provide links to this "wealth," because I'm simply not finding it. (And that might be the bigger story).
Heck, even that right wing bastion of panic mongering, The Drudge Report, has no headlines and links to any such stories today… Nada. Zilch. Zero.
How can you be so blind as to not realize that advising a gay man to live a heterosexual lifestyle is exactly tantamount to advising a heterosexual man to live a homosexual lifestyle, or, to borrow your analogy, advising a hungry man to eat bark.
Jesus would *never* approve of such a thing.
Janna - you're so awful you clearly drove your husband to The Gay.
You're not fighting the good fight, you're not lighting a candle in the darkness, you're not keeping the world safe for homosexuality--you're engaging with a troll whose only goal is engagement. You lose as soon as you play.
I'm sure she pays a lot to her church which tells her what she wants to hear. She's empowered by it, and now she will stride into the mix of those 'godless deviants' to prove.... that her understanding belongs to the 13th Century. The time when the earth was flat and your health depended on the four humors and everything was simple and you'd enjoy yourself by going to the hanging/burning/head lopped off of those who made life complicated. She's a throwback, and it's easy to forget how medieval people think.
You're right, Junior. Hard reality should mean nothing to anybody, damn it!
So, for today I insist that I'm a purple porcupine with green polka dots. Tomorrow maybe I'll be the king of England.
Hey, this 'my imagination trumps reality' stuff is fun.
If you're 3.
You're right too! Almost nobody here would recognize the good fight, let alone be fighting it.
I'm telling nobody whom to marry. Not my business, unless they're trying to destroy marriage by redefinition, as with so called gay marriage.
But if I were there are all sorts of people I'd advise postpone or avoid marriage given their personal status. I wouldn't advise someone who couldn't afford it to marry, for example.
I also wouldn't advise marriage for a person who knows they have pedophiliac tendencies, unless they knew kids were an impossibility. I'd advise a drug addict or alcoholic to deal with that before marrying.
And I'd advise someone suffering from the disorder of homosexual inclinations to find a healthy approach to their sexuality before marrying.
See, reality isn't hard. It's when you try to ignore it, as with all liberal thought, and with gay so called marriage things get complicated
Seattleblues - However "deviant"--a highly subjective term, and therefore only relevant to the degree that you are willing and able to debate moral philosophy in depth (I await, quite anxiously, the day you do me the honor of taking me on in that department, rather than running off with your tail between your legs; I can't enlighten the world without a credible opponent, and you seem, on occasion, to display a belief that you are one)--you may find homosexual acts, they are not fundamentally riskier than the same acts committed twixt heterosexuals.
Now, debating acts in and of themselves, without getting into the discussion of sexual orientation, is one thing; I can have that discussion with you, but you'd need to be willing to, well, have a discussion (privately, if you prefer; my email is yours if you want it, though given your willingness to express your views in public, your unwillingness to defend them publicly suggests the possibility of intellectual discomfort with your conclusions). If we limit ourselves to the matter of whether engaging in acts adds up to an orientation, I have to say that I'm not sure why it matters one way or the other. It may be that I am not a left-handed person, but simply a person who has chosen, in light of the greater strength of his left arm and dexterity of his left hand, to favor that hand in the use of writing implements and eating utensils. The functional difference is nil; I could force myself to use the right hand for the sake of conforming to an ideal, and suppose I should be at liberty to do so if playing at a handicap--using the hand that will likely always be weaker and less dexterous than the other, whatever my efforts to the contrary--is preferable to me for whatever reason. To what end I would do so, though, I cannot imagine.
Now, I'm "fortunate," I guess, in that my right to marry the wonderful woman I married has never been in question, so I've never had to make that call--be a part of the world where cohabitation and commitment is recognized by the state, the community, my employer, and "blessed," for lack of a more secular word (it's early, and this is a little rushed), with rights under the law relating to property and our individual and collective definition(s) and legal entities, OR form a satisfying union with someone with whom I am capable of feeling erotic and emotional attraction and attachment. Getting to do both was, for reasons we could spend all day teasing out and debating (again, that would require you to behave as though you had the strength of conviction and could live up to your claims of rational basis), available to me from the get-go.
So, as usual, please be specific, or remain silent (or offer a smartass retort that officially and obviously avoids any possibility of debate): What "healthy" function does the social bonding ritual of marriage accomplish with and for heterosexual couples--including the infertile, elderly, or voluntarily childless heterosexual couples who have been allowed to enjoy the benefits of this ritual being recognized through our insitutions--that it does not accomplish for same-sex couples? What "healthy" function does the social bonding ritual of mutual erotic play, stimulation, and orgasm achieve for heterosexual couples--including those who, by choice/chance/mecical reality, do not produce progeny by way of these acts--that it does not also achieve for homosexual couples? And finally, what empirically demonstrable civic utility is served by offering marital rights to those who form households around (in the modern parlance and understanding) mutual romantic and erotic bonds with members of the opposite sex while denying those rights to those who form households around the same bonds with members of the same sex?
I am eager, in equal measure, to hear something or nothing from you on the subject. :)
I do, in general, think that there is something problematically selfish about divorce, particularly where children are involved. I think that has more to do with the ease and rashness with which people marry. Ideally, whatever obstacles there may be to marriage working--whether it's addiction, sexual orientation, a disinclination towards monogamy, irreconcilable differences in worldview/lifestyle/core temperament--would be well worked out prior to taking vows. When any of those obstacles are stigmatized (e.g., when people like you insist that they are failings to be overcome rather than differences to be accounted for, accepted, and, if possible, accommodated), though, the risk of ignoring them increases.
LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!
You wrote, "I'd advise someone suffering from the disorder of homosexual inclinations to find a healthy approach to their sexuality before marrying."
Fine. But--to return to my earlier question--if part of a man's "healthy approach" to dealing with "the disorder of [his] homosexual inclinations" involved marrying your daughter--would you give your blessing to the marriage?
This is a simple question. Only a "yes" or a "no" is required.
This suggests that he sees it as a positive thing when a straight female marries and devotes her marriage to helping a man make "healthy sexual choices." Seattleblues has given the concept his imprimatur--at least in the case of Janna Darnelle.
He has also repeatedly gone on record to say that that there is no discrimination against gays in traditional marriage laws, because a gay man is as free as a straight man to marry a person of the opposite sex, and a lesbian is as free as a straight woman to marry a person of the opposite sex.
Moreover, he has derided the concept of gay marriage as "redefining marriage" for everbody else, therefore not leaving that as an option.
So since he is on record as (1) being against the redefinition of marriage, and (2) has suggested that gay men have the same right to marry women that straight men do, AND (3) has stated--in this thread and elsewhere--that there are really no gay people--but instead only people "who've chosen a homosexual lifestyle" (see comment @23), AND (4) stated that it is a noble thing for a woman to help a man with homosexual tendencies "make healthy choices," my original question still stands: if Seattleblues had a daughter who wanted to marry a man with "homosexual inclinations" in order to help him make healthy choices--would he give the marriage his blessing?
He still has not answered that question.
@70: "Hey, this 'my imagination trumps reality' stuff is fun."
Funny you say that, given your predilection for claiming that:
-your imagination trumps SCOTUS rulings
-your imagination trumps the overwhelming evidence regarding climatology
-your imagination trumps state anti-discrimination law
-your imagination trumps the fossil record
-your imagination trumps the combined medical knowledge of both APAs
and many other ways in which you claim that your opinions have primacy over reality. You're extremely delusional.
@73: "Not my business, unless they're trying to destroy marriage by redefinition, as with so called gay marriage."
NO, YOU MORON, IT'S STILL NOT YOUR BUSINESS.
What's with you and claiming that The Gay is out to "destroy marriage"? WHAT EXACTLY do you think will happen if gays can get gay married?
How exactly have my cousin and her partner being able to solemnize their relationship hurt you, or any other straight schmo off the street?
"See, reality isn't hard."
You seem to have plenty of trouble. no1curr
Unbelievably, this anti-gay hate group, Witherspoon, is able to operate from right on the Princeton University campus. The Southern Poverty Law Center should be looking very carefully at all of the malicious anti-LGBT hate mongering.
I can't stand people who can't face the truth, bury it under a phony marriage - then wait until kids/dependents are on the scene to finally "find themselves" - and that goes for breeders too. I'd sue the guy into the ground for being a chicken-shit dishonest asshole too weak willed to be honest with himself and admit he had no business marrying a woman in the first place.
Fucking marriage. It turns people into class A idiots.
@90 Alternate "Lord and Master" days sound hawt!
I'm open minded to the views of others. I understand that not everyone has the same background, experiences, and values as I do. I just object to people insulting their audience's intelligence by feeding them lines of reasoning that don't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny.
Allowing gays to get married hurts straights because it tells closeted gays that they don't have to stay in doomed straight relationships? Please. The implication there is that it's better to be in a doomed and empty romantic relationship with someone incapable of loving you than to amicably go separate ways so that both parties can be happy.
Don't crap in my cappuccino and tell me it's nutmeg. If you have an opinion that you want to wave in someone's face, give them the real reason for your opinion, not some half-baked bullshit that you think sounds less offensive.
Don't disappoint me, bigots. If you truly care about this issue, you'll answer the question.
They're Mormon. It is 1950. In fact it might be 1890.
I don't think "tolerate" means what you think it means.
Like duh, it wasn't that her husband left her for a man that hurt her; OK, what does that mean to her? Does she accept, understand, or acknowledge that her issues are overwhelmingly not related to her husbands sexuality?