Listening to Lauren talk, my heart breaks for her husband. He is basically being forced to accept emotional and possibly physical infidelity or else he will lose his wife. Forget religion, if both of them were atheist, this would still be a pretty hard pill to swallow for any husband or wife to swallow. If a heterosexual man just one day told his wife that he was attracted to other women and NOT attracted to her, do you think she should just accept it and let him "explore his sexual options"? Or do you think she has a right to demand he keep his marital commitment of fidelity to only her? Any way you slice it, Lauren threw a curve ball at her husband and he should have every right to expect her to keep her marital commitment or go separate ways. If he is cool with this, then all is good I guess. My main point is that, he has EVERY right to not be okay with this.
I would feel very uncomfortable if my wife told me this. I feel that it would be dishonest if we stayed married. Not fair on me, and not fair on her. Though I feel that they got in this situation because of the pressure of the church and the church's unhealthy stigma on any LGBTQ+ persons.
@@michaelgrey7854 That is fine if you want to blame SOME of this on the culture of the church but let's be real here, this situation happened because one person was being dishonest with her partner (and herself) and only "coming out" AFTER her partner is locked into the relationship (kids, marriage contract, financial ties, emotional investment for YEARS, etc). Again, just take my original scenario. What if a man just one day comes up to his wife of 10 years or so and says, "hey, I need to confess that I am not attracted to you. I was never really attracted to you but I thought you were a nice woman and I liked the idea of being with someone like you. I really tried to be attracted to you but the truth is that I am attracted to other women (or men, or goats, etc) and so I really feel like I need to explore those other options sexually or else I just cant do this anymore." Culture ebbs and flows. Right now homosexuality and gender dysphoria is all the rage. Back in ancient Greece it was culturally appropriate for men to go to bathhouses and "enjoy the company of boys". Were those men "born" pedophiles? Or was that just the predominate culture? I am not saying I have any authority to speak on sexuality and genetics, but I do see enough holes in the "born this way" theory that I am not ready to jump on that bandwagon.
Yeah I agree with your take on this, however I do think that your example isn’t a great one. More applicable would be a married man springing that he isn’t attracted to his wife (or other women) but rather only sexually attracted to other men. I am bi (99% women and 1 man) but I am not restricted or not attracted to my husband sexually, it is just different. I did not hide this either, my husband knew when we began dating at 16. Additionally we are Catholic and believe in traditional marriage and values. Unfortunately unfaithfulness has been a regular occurrence on his part with porn. Which has continued to destroy our intimate relationship, due to the utter and complete lack of honesty. IMO honesty is by far the most important component of any relationship.
@@sarahalderman3126 if your husband was told that you have no sexual attraction to him and he still married you, that is on him. Wait, so you are not attracted to him sexually but you consider him taking care of his sexual needs with porn cheating? Are you having regular sex with him? If not, do you just expect him to be celibet? At least he is not stepping outside for it. I am also curious, since you are attracted to women, do you ever get close to other women? develop crushes? or more? If so, do you consider that unfaithful? It seems pretty complicated. I personally would not agree to such a marriage but if it works for you guys..(based on your comment, it does not seem to work though)
Romantic love isn't true love. It is a chemical reaction of hormones in the body. Love is a verb. It is a choice and an action. It is work. The love she talks about having with her husband is amazing! That kind of love is rare and precious. What a great tribute to their marriage!!! I'm so happy that they can be open and honest and make decisions together to strengthen their family and to make sure that all of the needs of each partner are met. WOW!
I feel so sorry for her husband. He doesn't get a fulfilling sex life with his wife, or any of the other benefits of marriage. But, he gets the responsibilities of providing for a woman. The man is taking a total L.
Everything she said in the last 30 seconds of this interview is SPOT ON! Those elements are what I wish ALL people could learn about marriage and relationships before they get into them. I think one of the key elements in all of this is how the church intentionally stunts individual development so that people do not have sufficient experiences BEFORE they get into marriage. How many people start their lives following the church plan and don't get the opportunity to break out and learn about themselves and live their lives to the fullest as a result of this programming.
Well done Lauren I also can relate to you. I was 12yrs when I discovered hoo I was. Being where I am from you didn't dare speak. Or come out back in the early 80s. I carried my sexuality,38years. Got married to a wonderful husband. A gentleman. The big attraction for me was his good head of hair and mustache kindness. It was outted of me when I turned 50yrs of age by a friend hoo is also gay. Myself and my husband are both working things through. We get on better now than ever. He always knew deep down. Never talked about it. I think it was always hanging around us. But we are best friends now. Nothing intimate has happened for over 20years. But we are good now. Your's is amazing story Lauren. Well done ❤❤
since "nothing intimate has happened for over 20 years" with your husband, has he been able to seek sexual encounters with other women? Or do you get to blissfully live a celibate life while you are content with your husband being forced to be celibate while you refuse to be sexually active with him?
Forcing young obediently simple people into marriages they are unconditional with seems a bit “rapey.” How is this not severely harmful, especially when children are involved?
I am curious, since she said they might possibly have an open marriage in the future, does Lauren mean that the marriage is open for both her and her husband to have sexual encounters with other people, or just she is allowed to have sexual encounters with other women? If she is open about not being sexually attracted to him, does she still continue to make love to him? Do they have a sexless marriage (regarding each other)? Is it considered abuse for a husband to expect sex from his gay wife? Is it considered abuse for her to expect him to remain celibate? These are personal questions but now with everyone hopping on the LGBTXYZ trend, things are getting pretty complicated and morality seems to be blurred to the point of being meaningless. I am just wondering if John or other "Allies" can make sense of this and what it all means. Or is everyone just making it up as they go?
In open relationships both people have relations with other people and tell each other about who they have been with, if they're still having sexual relations together.
@@arianae6706 I totally agree that the questions I posed are personal in nature and nobodies business, however when you go public (for whatever reason) and the topic you are addressing is your personal sexuality and how it effects your marriage, I feel like such questions are fair game. For example, who I voted for is my personal business, but if I start publicly campaigning for a certain candidate, I can't get offended if people ask questions regarding the positions that politician has taken, bills they plan to endorse, and why I am endorsing him/her over the others. So I get that these individuals can choose how much of their personal lives they disclose. My main point was to use this couple to ask general questions to those who have an "anything goes" mentality with regard to sexuality and the LGBTXYZ social trend. My questions are meant to spark thought over all regarding what (if any) parameters for morality in society should we still embrace. It appears that marriage can mean anything according to LGBTXYZ advocates, which of course means that it actually means nothing. This was the original concern of many traditional marriage advocates who were concerned about redefining marriage a couple decades ago and all the LGBTXYZ advocates were scoffing at that slippery slope accusation, yet here we are, with EXACTLY that scenario playing out.
@@arianae6706 Thank you for that well thought out and respectful response. It is rare these days to respectfully disagree on an issue (especially on anything surrounding the LGBTXYZ topic) without it turning into people hurling accusations of hate or phobia and then nobody gets their point across. So thank you for respectful dialogue. You and I are on the same page regarding religious institutions. Although I am still religious (I believe there is a God and I also believe there is universal, objective morality) I feel that probably every religious institution has been corrupted and set up to benefit those in power in each institution and control/extort the masses. However that does not mean that EVERYTHING they teach is wrong. I can't find fault with any of the Ten Commandments, for example. I also believe that the foundation for a healthy society is the family unit, with a mother and father who instill that morality that hopefully is universally accepted in that society. Of course there will always be outliers (divorced people, widowed people, people who chose alternative lifestyles) but the traditional family has shown to be by design (if you are religious) or the evolutionary peak of a species (humans are clearly the most dominate species) the best method for cultivating a stable society, generation after generation. So, I agree that every individual can choose their own morality (as with this family) but I am also speaking about it on a macro scale. And I think we can have both conversations. One question I do have (and it is NOT intended to be offensive) is you and most LGBT advocates state that people have little to no control over their physical attractions. My question is, do you think that sexual attraction can NEVER be something acquired? You are attracted to what you are attracted to at birth? So doesn't that mean that the position that sexuality can be fluid (a common LGBT position) is incorrect? Also, if someone who is gay can not possibly suppress and/reduse those attractions, what are your thoughts on people who claim to be attracted to animals? What about people who are pedophiles who claim that they are attracted to young children? Forget the element of consent and morality for a second, I am only interested if you think that those people have ANY control over those attractions? If so, then how can you also hold the position that others can not possibly control or even alter their physical attractions?
@@arianae6706 I generally use "LGBTXYZ" to illustrate that this group's label changes almost daily. Sadly, if I started using the label that is currently acceptable at this very second, it will likely become "offensive" in the near future. I admit that it is a little flippant, but again it is not meant as offensive. If anything it is meant as a little lighthearted. If I was a member of a community and that community constantly changed their label to reflect the ever changing set of beliefs, I would be a good sport about people poking a little fun at how my group seems all over the place. Because you and I are keeping it civil, I will agree to use the term you prefer. my only qualm is when "LGBTQIA" people constantly attempt to COMPEL others to use their language (which is ever changing) or else threaten their jobs, their social status, etc. As long as you agree that I am not automatically a bigot for not keeping up with the newest acronym, I'll agree to use the label you currently prefer.
Shocking, another person that changed their beliefs to conform to their behavior. Don't blame the Church for your unwillingness to accept that there is moral right and wrong.
Say it! Im not a Mormon but I do believe in Christ. God is real and has a standard of living. We all struggle with something. Our flesh is something that has its own will. I hope that she seeks God instead of being a self seeker.
Just WOW my heart goes out to her husband but if he's chosen this path it's self inflicted he should cut his losses and try to salvage what's left of his emaciated dignity there comes a point where you have to open your eyes and see the ashes around you
“Our marriage” That’s not a marriage; at least not what decent people or most faiths claim. Her husband should divorce her and find a straight women that he can have a proper relationship with.
"That’s not a marriage; at least not what decent people or most faiths claim." - Yep, arrogance, condescension and defining "decent people" . . . . must be a TBM. Seems like you have a pretty good handle on what a "proper" relationship is. I hope for your sake that nothing ever challenges your ideals of how life is supposed to go because you will have a pretty rough time changing your viewpoint.
@@billr4914 Sam's comment is probably a little needlessly harsh and judgmental, but I do have a question for LGBT advocates. About 20 or so years ago LGBT advocates really started to push to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples and the traditional marriage advocates said that it would lead to a slippery slope where marriage could mean ANYTHING, and therefore mean nothing. LGBT advocates scoffed at this prediction and said they were just being an alarmist for no reason. So, now here we are, watching the term marriage being redefined to mean what ever anyone in the LGBT community wants it to mean. So my question to you is, what is the definition of marriage? Does it have any meaning at all? Or is it just a legal document like a sales contract that any two parties can enter into at this point?
@@nickdipaolofan5948 "LGBT advocates scoffed at this prediction and said they were just being an alarmist for no reason." Personally my bullshit meter hit the roof on this. When you advocate for something you will say ANYTHING to make it happen. They knew damn well that it would cause a paradigm shift but they just didn't care and said what they thought needed to be said to make it happen. Ends justify the means situation. I'll be honest, I'm a supporter for their cause but I'm also a realist and value truth, don't try to bury me in sand and pretend it's snow.
@@billr4914 I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you are saying that you know that LGBT advocates were lying back then because they always knew that legally redefining marriage was going to water down the meaning drastically down the road and in fact, that might have been their goal all along? And you also support this movement that you seem to imply was knowingly dishonest and justified it because the end justifies the means? Again, if that is not what you meant, please elaborate for me.
que farsa, ese no es amor, es comodidad, todavia siguen respondiendo a la iglesia, aunque no vallan, los hijos se crain mejor dandoles amor y sindo honestos con uno Mismo, que manera mas hipocrita de dibujar las relaciones afectivas, lamento que los dos sean infelices
Listening to Lauren talk, my heart breaks for her husband. He is basically being forced to accept emotional and possibly physical infidelity or else he will lose his wife. Forget religion, if both of them were atheist, this would still be a pretty hard pill to swallow for any husband or wife to swallow.
If a heterosexual man just one day told his wife that he was attracted to other women and NOT attracted to her, do you think she should just accept it and let him "explore his sexual options"? Or do you think she has a right to demand he keep his marital commitment of fidelity to only her? Any way you slice it, Lauren threw a curve ball at her husband and he should have every right to expect her to keep her marital commitment or go separate ways.
If he is cool with this, then all is good I guess. My main point is that, he has EVERY right to not be okay with this.
If he's cool with infidelity he's not a good husband...I would divorce her. I hope they don't have kids.
I would feel very uncomfortable if my wife told me this. I feel that it would be dishonest if we stayed married. Not fair on me, and not fair on her. Though I feel that they got in this situation because of the pressure of the church and the church's unhealthy stigma on any LGBTQ+ persons.
@@michaelgrey7854 That is fine if you want to blame SOME of this on the culture of the church but let's be real here, this situation happened because one person was being dishonest with her partner (and herself) and only "coming out" AFTER her partner is locked into the relationship (kids, marriage contract, financial ties, emotional investment for YEARS, etc).
Again, just take my original scenario. What if a man just one day comes up to his wife of 10 years or so and says, "hey, I need to confess that I am not attracted to you. I was never really attracted to you but I thought you were a nice woman and I liked the idea of being with someone like you. I really tried to be attracted to you but the truth is that I am attracted to other women (or men, or goats, etc) and so I really feel like I need to explore those other options sexually or else I just cant do this anymore."
Culture ebbs and flows. Right now homosexuality and gender dysphoria is all the rage. Back in ancient Greece it was culturally appropriate for men to go to bathhouses and "enjoy the company of boys". Were those men "born" pedophiles? Or was that just the predominate culture?
I am not saying I have any authority to speak on sexuality and genetics, but I do see enough holes in the "born this way" theory that I am not ready to jump on that bandwagon.
Yeah I agree with your take on this, however I do think that your example isn’t a great one. More applicable would be a married man springing that he isn’t attracted to his wife (or other women) but rather only sexually attracted to other men. I am bi (99% women and 1 man) but I am not restricted or not attracted to my husband sexually, it is just different. I did not hide this either, my husband knew when we began dating at 16. Additionally we are Catholic and believe in traditional marriage and values. Unfortunately unfaithfulness has been a regular occurrence on his part with porn. Which has continued to destroy our intimate relationship, due to the utter and complete lack of honesty. IMO honesty is by far the most important component of any relationship.
@@sarahalderman3126 if your husband was told that you have no sexual attraction to him and he still married you, that is on him. Wait, so you are not attracted to him sexually but you consider him taking care of his sexual needs with porn cheating? Are you having regular sex with him? If not, do you just expect him to be celibet? At least he is not stepping outside for it. I am also curious, since you are attracted to women, do you ever get close to other women? develop crushes? or more? If so, do you consider that unfaithful?
It seems pretty complicated. I personally would not agree to such a marriage but if it works for you guys..(based on your comment, it does not seem to work though)
Wow she gets to have it both ways keep her family and have girlfriends gee what a surprise
Romantic love isn't true love. It is a chemical reaction of hormones in the body. Love is a verb. It is a choice and an action. It is work. The love she talks about having with her husband is amazing! That kind of love is rare and precious. What a great tribute to their marriage!!! I'm so happy that they can be open and honest and make decisions together to strengthen their family and to make sure that all of the needs of each partner are met. WOW!
Haha no. If you are straight woman imagine yourself marrying a woman just because it would be more convenient.
"Romantic love isn't true love. It is a chemical of hormones in the body"
OK redditor
Life is is a verb in itself
I feel so sorry for her husband. He doesn't get a fulfilling sex life with his wife, or any of the other benefits of marriage. But, he gets the responsibilities of providing for a woman. The man is taking a total L.
Everything she said in the last 30 seconds of this interview is SPOT ON! Those elements are what I wish ALL people could learn about marriage and relationships before they get into them. I think one of the key elements in all of this is how the church intentionally stunts individual development so that people do not have sufficient experiences BEFORE they get into marriage. How many people start their lives following the church plan and don't get the opportunity to break out and learn about themselves and live their lives to the fullest as a result of this programming.
Exactly my thoughts when i left islam. I never got to know myself i was just a robot following muhammad
Well done Lauren I also can relate to you. I was 12yrs when I discovered hoo I was. Being where I am from you didn't dare speak. Or come out back in the early 80s. I carried my sexuality,38years. Got married to a wonderful husband. A gentleman. The big attraction for me was his good head of hair and mustache kindness. It was outted of me when I turned 50yrs of age by a friend hoo is also gay. Myself and my husband are both working things through. We get on better now than ever. He always knew deep down. Never talked about it. I think it was always hanging around us. But we are best friends now. Nothing intimate has happened for over 20years. But we are good now. Your's is amazing story Lauren. Well done ❤❤
since "nothing intimate has happened for over 20 years" with your husband, has he been able to seek sexual encounters with other women? Or do you get to blissfully live a celibate life while you are content with your husband being forced to be celibate while you refuse to be sexually active with him?
This is really crazy, sorry for this people
Forcing young obediently simple people into marriages they are unconditional with seems a bit “rapey.” How is this not severely harmful, especially when children are involved?
I am curious, since she said they might possibly have an open marriage in the future, does Lauren mean that the marriage is open for both her and her husband to have sexual encounters with other people, or just she is allowed to have sexual encounters with other women? If she is open about not being sexually attracted to him, does she still continue to make love to him? Do they have a sexless marriage (regarding each other)? Is it considered abuse for a husband to expect sex from his gay wife? Is it considered abuse for her to expect him to remain celibate?
These are personal questions but now with everyone hopping on the LGBTXYZ trend, things are getting pretty complicated and morality seems to be blurred to the point of being meaningless. I am just wondering if John or other "Allies" can make sense of this and what it all means. Or is everyone just making it up as they go?
My reply to the above comment got deleted.
In open relationships both people have relations with other people and tell each other about who they have been with, if they're still having sexual relations together.
@@arianae6706 I totally agree that the questions I posed are personal in nature and nobodies business, however when you go public (for whatever reason) and the topic you are addressing is your personal sexuality and how it effects your marriage, I feel like such questions are fair game. For example, who I voted for is my personal business, but if I start publicly campaigning for a certain candidate, I can't get offended if people ask questions regarding the positions that politician has taken, bills they plan to endorse, and why I am endorsing him/her over the others.
So I get that these individuals can choose how much of their personal lives they disclose. My main point was to use this couple to ask general questions to those who have an "anything goes" mentality with regard to sexuality and the LGBTXYZ social trend. My questions are meant to spark thought over all regarding what (if any) parameters for morality in society should we still embrace. It appears that marriage can mean anything according to LGBTXYZ advocates, which of course means that it actually means nothing. This was the original concern of many traditional marriage advocates who were concerned about redefining marriage a couple decades ago and all the LGBTXYZ advocates were scoffing at that slippery slope accusation, yet here we are, with EXACTLY that scenario playing out.
@@arianae6706 Thank you for that well thought out and respectful response. It is rare these days to respectfully disagree on an issue (especially on anything surrounding the LGBTXYZ topic) without it turning into people hurling accusations of hate or phobia and then nobody gets their point across. So thank you for respectful dialogue.
You and I are on the same page regarding religious institutions. Although I am still religious (I believe there is a God and I also believe there is universal, objective morality) I feel that probably every religious institution has been corrupted and set up to benefit those in power in each institution and control/extort the masses. However that does not mean that EVERYTHING they teach is wrong. I can't find fault with any of the Ten Commandments, for example. I also believe that the foundation for a healthy society is the family unit, with a mother and father who instill that morality that hopefully is universally accepted in that society. Of course there will always be outliers (divorced people, widowed people, people who chose alternative lifestyles) but the traditional family has shown to be by design (if you are religious) or the evolutionary peak of a species (humans are clearly the most dominate species) the best method for cultivating a stable society, generation after generation.
So, I agree that every individual can choose their own morality (as with this family) but I am also speaking about it on a macro scale. And I think we can have both conversations.
One question I do have (and it is NOT intended to be offensive) is you and most LGBT advocates state that people have little to no control over their physical attractions. My question is, do you think that sexual attraction can NEVER be something acquired? You are attracted to what you are attracted to at birth? So doesn't that mean that the position that sexuality can be fluid (a common LGBT position) is incorrect? Also, if someone who is gay can not possibly suppress and/reduse those attractions, what are your thoughts on people who claim to be attracted to animals? What about people who are pedophiles who claim that they are attracted to young children? Forget the element of consent and morality for a second, I am only interested if you think that those people have ANY control over those attractions? If so, then how can you also hold the position that others can not possibly control or even alter their physical attractions?
@@arianae6706 I generally use "LGBTXYZ" to illustrate that this group's label changes almost daily. Sadly, if I started using the label that is currently acceptable at this very second, it will likely become "offensive" in the near future. I admit that it is a little flippant, but again it is not meant as offensive. If anything it is meant as a little lighthearted. If I was a member of a community and that community constantly changed their label to reflect the ever changing set of beliefs, I would be a good sport about people poking a little fun at how my group seems all over the place. Because you and I are keeping it civil, I will agree to use the term you prefer. my only qualm is when "LGBTQIA" people constantly attempt to COMPEL others to use their language (which is ever changing) or else threaten their jobs, their social status, etc. As long as you agree that I am not automatically a bigot for not keeping up with the newest acronym, I'll agree to use the label you currently prefer.
You are very blessed ( your husband & you)...and so beautiful too
Shocking, another person that changed their beliefs to conform to their behavior. Don't blame the Church for your unwillingness to accept that there is moral right and wrong.
Say it! Im not a Mormon but I do believe in Christ. God is real and has a standard of living. We all struggle with something. Our flesh is something that has its own will. I hope that she seeks God instead of being a self seeker.
She married her friend basically. But what about sex?
Side pieces
Just WOW my heart goes out to her husband but if he's chosen this path it's self inflicted he should cut his losses and try to salvage what's left of his emaciated dignity there comes a point where you have to open your eyes and see the ashes around you
“Our marriage”
That’s not a marriage; at least not what decent people or most faiths claim.
Her husband should divorce her and find a straight women that he can have a proper relationship with.
"That’s not a marriage; at least not what decent people or most faiths claim." - Yep, arrogance, condescension and defining "decent people" . . . . must be a TBM. Seems like you have a pretty good handle on what a "proper" relationship is. I hope for your sake that nothing ever challenges your ideals of how life is supposed to go because you will have a pretty rough time changing your viewpoint.
@@billr4914 Sam's comment is probably a little needlessly harsh and judgmental, but I do have a question for LGBT advocates. About 20 or so years ago LGBT advocates really started to push to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples and the traditional marriage advocates said that it would lead to a slippery slope where marriage could mean ANYTHING, and therefore mean nothing. LGBT advocates scoffed at this prediction and said they were just being an alarmist for no reason.
So, now here we are, watching the term marriage being redefined to mean what ever anyone in the LGBT community wants it to mean. So my question to you is, what is the definition of marriage? Does it have any meaning at all? Or is it just a legal document like a sales contract that any two parties can enter into at this point?
@@nickdipaolofan5948 "LGBT advocates scoffed at this prediction and said they were just being an alarmist for no reason." Personally my bullshit meter hit the roof on this. When you advocate for something you will say ANYTHING to make it happen. They knew damn well that it would cause a paradigm shift but they just didn't care and said what they thought needed to be said to make it happen. Ends justify the means situation. I'll be honest, I'm a supporter for their cause but I'm also a realist and value truth, don't try to bury me in sand and pretend it's snow.
@@billr4914 I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds like you are saying that you know that LGBT advocates were lying back then because they always knew that legally redefining marriage was going to water down the meaning drastically down the road and in fact, that might have been their goal all along? And you also support this movement that you seem to imply was knowingly dishonest and justified it because the end justifies the means?
Again, if that is not what you meant, please elaborate for me.
@@billr4914 Also, is this Bill Reel?
Tell me John; have you any boundaries?
Would you interview an adult who has sexual inclinations towards someone who is barely eighteen?
You twisted you mind/
que farsa, ese no es amor, es comodidad, todavia siguen respondiendo a la iglesia, aunque no vallan, los hijos se crain mejor dandoles amor y sindo honestos con uno Mismo, que manera mas hipocrita de dibujar las relaciones afectivas, lamento que los dos sean infelices