Talk:Mixed-orientation marriage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Support groups

• The Straight Spouse Network is the largest organization for people in mixed-orientation marriages.
• The Q Christian Fellowship contains a group aimed at couples in mixed-orientation marriages.
• People Can Change is an ex-gay group aimed at men and contains a group for their wives.
• Boston Gay & Bisexual Married Men's Support Group is a group based in Boston for gay and bisexual married men.
• Women of Worth is an organization for women married to gay men. It is predominately for Latter-day Saints, though other people may attend.

Discussion

There are many good reasons to include or not include this information but wikipedia is not a yellowpages - a list, that is - of all groups that may fit this description. Plus we cannot source a claim about a group to the group itself. Also we don't bold these names as such. At this point I would support including the most notable of these groups, likely Straight Spouse Network, if we have a reliable source that supports their notability. Otherwise this comes off as POV-pushing which is likely unhelpful to our readers. Banjeboi 00:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed ex-gay category

I removed the ex-gay movement category from the article. It's beyond me what the justification was for putting it here in the first place. Apparently the only grounds are that mixed-orientation marriages are related to homosexuality, but by that logic everything related to homosexuality could have the ex-gay movement category added to it. Skoojal (talk) 04:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

borkeback reference deleted

The article had a sentence saying "these are sometimes refered to as 'Brokeback' marriages". I deleted it, because the only reference given to back up this assertion was the NYT article, which only uses the term in its title. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of issues justifying deletion

This organised list is mentioned in the discussion to have Mixed-orientation marriage deleted located here.

Clear heterosexist bias:

All of the following numbered points appear within the three sentences that constitute the entry paragraph.

1. “Non-heterosexual”, albeit handy, swings attention in favour of heterosexual behaviour esp. immediately following “between a man and a woman”. It, therefore, creates false opposites or, worse, a norm and its deviation. To be neutral and to show equal treatment, no group, be it a minority or majority, should be defined in terms of an/the other.

2. The article focuses almost solely on the so-called difference of the “non-heterosexual” spouse/person. Remember, the partner whose (hetero)sexual orientation is not stated is thereby portrayed in a normal light. The article should have been based on the relationship, not the so-called difference.

3. “Many gay men and lesbians marry people of the opposite sex and go on to have children.” This framing is identical to “many people who suffer from XYZ disease/deformity go on to lead healthy and productive lives”. See comment on “support groups” below.

4. The sentence on bisexual men is based on the negative stereotype of bisexuals being confused or torn between two options, the key words here being “conflict” and “impulses”.

5. In third/last/topic sentence of the entry paragraph there is an outright endorsement of opposite-sex marriage, irrespective of serious personal issues, both for the heterosexual partner and the bi-/homosexual partner.

Style/language issues and further POV framing:

The biased “conventional marriage” is a euphemism for “opposite-sex marriage.”

“Support groups” line frames mixed-orientation marriages as a disease, addiction or physical problem.

The actual name is “conversion therapy”, i.e. “…underwent [conversion] therapy…”

The phrasing “heterosexually marry” is as lamentable as “heterosexually speaking” is.

Abundant weasel words in every other sentence or even more frequently to support conjecture or in order to sway opinion: “many”, “some”, “others”, “a significant number”, “one man/study”, “seven men”, “may”, “usually”, “often”, etc.

Heterosexism + sexism:

“Cohen’s [heterosexual] female narrator was married to a homosexual man.”

“…belief that [heterosexual] women should be warned about [male] homosexuals so they could avoid marrying one.”

And his [heterosexual] wife Linda Lee Thomas

A story of a [heterosexual] woman whose [gay or bisexual] husband has an affair with another [gay or bisexual] man.

…with his [best friend’s] [gay or bisexual] father

Faulty logic:

“Avoiding discrimination” is a form of social cover just as “wishful thinking” is a form of psychological cover despite how the article claims otherwise.

In a heterosexist society, the desire for a family clearly serves as cover even if there is no apparent desire to conceal one’s bisexual or homosexual orientation in a mixed-orientation marriage. Moreover, bisexuals, and gay men and lesbians, single or in committed same-sex relationships, are prohibited from adopting in most jurisdictions. So, for these people, an opposite-sex marriage may be the only legally accepted means to adopt, esp. if the adoption agency is run by a religious organisation.

The Megan Mullaly quotation does not support the article’s stance; in fact, it mocks it. Following her logic, in which everyone is innately bisexual, there would be no such thing as a mixed-orientation marriage.

False dichotomy/distinction:

The article states nothing about the absence of a separation between a marriage of convenience, a lavender marriage or a mixed-orientation marriage despite the sentence stating that “gay people do not heterosexually marry out of convenience or for a cover, but for complex reasons”. Obviously, complex reasons do include both convenience and concealment. Thus, the micro-mention of “lavender marriage” shifts blame on gay-slang termed cover-up, esp. in Hollywood, whereas the explanation of a mixed-orientation marriage does not address the fact that such a marriage indeed acts as a cover-up, in greater society, of both the “non-heterosexual” partner’s sexual orientation, and if there should lack (non-procreative) heterosexual sexual behaviour, regardless of intention. --CJ Withers (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Does one partner have to be straight?

Vita Sackville-West and her husband were both bisexual and had numerous same-sex extramarital affairs. Can they be included on the list of famous couples? Also, I believe Keynes the famous economist should be on this list. Dec 12 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.215.149 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, shouldn't the definition be a marriage (or other conjugal relationship) between two people of different sexual orientations? If a marriage between a straight woman and a bisexual man is a 'mixed-orientation' marriage, then shouldn't a marriage between a lesbian and a bisexual woman also be 'mixed orientation'?

Logically it makes sense, but I haven't seen it used that way, and we can only report on the way that it is being used. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research and BLP concerns

I think we need to quite careful about listing people here as being in a marriage where one person is not heterosexual orientation. It may be true but we need to source it and our current policies emphasize strong sourcing in these areas. -- Banjeboi 02:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I mostly was relying on the bio page itself, but I understand that Wikipedia is not a source. I was actually thinking on making a category for Category:People in mixed-orientation marriages. The bios seem kind of vague and uninformative. All it says is that they were married and that they were either bisexual or gay. Nothing a category can't handle. I think because I was planning on just making it a category I go lazy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories have to been sourced strongly when it comes to religion, gender and sexuality issues. The general rule is to apply the category the article needs to have well sourced content that supports the category. In these cases the bar is a bit high, you need to have sourcing to show each person's sexual orientation and that they are indeed "mixed". Their bio on Wikipedia may or may not have that already but it should be on this article clearly. X is gay while Y identifies as straight, etc., with the source(s). I didn't mean to imply that OR was happening but we might as well get it right before someone deletes everything that isn't well sourced. -- Banjeboi 20:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Heterosexual/Homosexual vs. Straight/Queer

This entire article uses language that detracts from the main point. A mixed orientation marriage is not about a heterosexual and gay/bisexual parter, but about a queer person married to a straight person. For example, a bisexual man who is married to a heterosexual, transsexual woman shouldn't really fit the definition, because it is still a queer/queer marriage. (ie the woman is heterosexual but still queer.)

Also, this would go a long way to update the article into modern language, and help it with a lot of its biases. 70.36.140.241 (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This article...

is a miserable piece of dribble. I can see it as a legitimate topic (that being the reason, I assume, that it wasn't deleted last year) but in it's current condition it's just inflammatory garbage. It doesn't really do anything, other than define the term and spew out random crap.Persephone12 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the the section about sexual relationship disorder is longer (and very different!) than the stub it links to. Persephone12 (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I think that this should be deleted still. Does anyone think that it's actually salvageable? Persephone12 (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't say it better myself. Artsygeek (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Gender bias in the article

The article claims to be as much about marriages of lesbians to straight men as of gay men to straight women, yet the detailed discussion of the issue, the quotes from the media, etc, all seem to have the latter case and not the former in mind. This should be corrected.--Bhuck (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nothing of this applies to bisexual men (or women, for that matter)

There are a lot of times where bisexuals aren't mentioned even if something applies to them too. Here te opposite is the case: sometimes it reads "gays (the focus is on men) and bisexuals" when it makes no sense. Ap articulary bad example:

"Gay and bisexual men continue to marry for complex reasons, many impelled not only by discrimination, but also by wishful thinking, the layered ambiguities of sexual love and authentic affection."[3]"

Bisexual men continue to marry -yes, I mean women!- because they can fall in love with women just like heterosexuals do. Nothing in this article applies to bisexuals. Bisexuals marrying heterosexuals has nothing to do with discrimination, wishfuö thinking or layered ambiguities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.62.14.205 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is little in this article about bisexual women much at all, and nothing of them marrying straight men. The bisexual spouses discussed in this article seem to be all men. For bisexual spouses, they may still love their opposite gender spouse like a heterosexual spouse would, but may merely be either bicurious, or just want to "dabble" with the same sex from time to time. The bisexual spouse may or may not have the support of their straight spouse in such "dabbling". Some heterosexual spouses may or may not even be aware of the bisexuality of their spouses, presuming the bisexual spouses to be heterosexual as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.91.20 (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples

Surely the list of famous examples is a bad idea? For starters, it could include almost every bisexual. 92.15.49.169 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Invisible bisexuals

This article seems to treat mixed-orientation marriages as disordered. There is no discussion whatsoever of marriages where one or both spouses is bisexual. Just because a person may be attracted to members of the same sex doesn't mean they can't also be equally or more attracted to members of the opposite sex, including their spouse. When these marriages are mentioned in the article (especially under the list of celebrity marriages) they're treated as disordered and out of the ordinary. This only adds to the general heterosexist slant of the article mentioned above. TrinityClare (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed a problem with the article. Another problem is that when it states that most mixed-orientation marriages fail, it lumps marriages where one partner is bisexual into that group, despite a lack of evidence (and logical reasoning) to suggest that these marriages have a higher failure-rate than same-orientation marriages. In other words, while it makes sense that marriages involving homosexuals partnered with someone of the opposite sex would have a tendency to go pear-shaped, there is no reason to think that this would be the case where one of the partners is bisexual. A major re-write of this article is needed, methinks. 144.131.38.140 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is biphobic, pure and simple. The suggestion that bi people can't have a stable relationships with monosexual people is ridiculous. --Hirsutism (talk) 14:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both of you 100%. The content of this article should be changed to focus much less on heterosexual-homosexual relationships (we already have an article on the Lavender Marriage anyway, so why retell it here?), and it makes it out to be that ALL mixed-orientation marriages are stuck in the binary. Meanwhile, a straight man who is with a bisexual or pansexual woman, for example, is either treated like his situation doesn't exist, while his situation would be entirely different from that of a lavender marriage or a same-orientation marriage. What's especially sad is that the original post was made three years ago and it's STILL riddled with those same problems. MVillani1985 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing about straight men marrying les/bi women

What of the discussions of straight men and bi/les wives?

There are issues there too. A straight man may like the idea of a bi wife, if for only the fantasy value, for example. He might encourage his wife's more lesbian tendencies, both for her sake, and for the "fun" value for him.

Or he may not care about his wife being bisexual/bicurious. He could let his wife "dabble" with a girlfriend of hers from time to time, just to keep her happy, for example.

Or the wife may choose to sacrifice her lesbian tendencies, with varying degrees of willingness to do so, to save her marriage to her straight husband.

Let's discuss this, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.14.158 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Being bisexual doesn't mean you can't be monogamous ! If the woman you discuss commits to a man then that's it (well in practice I'm not a firm believer in monogamy, but that has nothing to do with sexual orientation). Aesma (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Asexuality has been ignored

Hi... I normally don't participate in wikipedia's projects, but when I stumbled across this article I couldn't help but notice that there wasn't a single mention of asexuality. However, AVEN and other major sources of information on asexuality provide a variety of examples of marriages between an asexual and a person of another sexual orientation. I have practically no editing experience, and the article will probably need quite an overhaul to fix this problem, putting it way beyond my skill level. Hopefully the problem will be fixed soon by somebody who can reach that skill level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.172.219 (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree, although as of today's article there is in fact one sentence devoted to asexuality, "If one of the partners is asexual, the marriage may involve romantic love but not sexual activity." That sentence is located in the lede, but the rest of the article ignores the topic. The lede is supposed to provide a summary of information that is explained in greater detail elsewhere in the article, so there is a need for asexuality to be expanded as a topic in this article. Anyone can edit provided their edits are based on facts, this is often proven by providing a citation. I've read this article a few times, my impression is that there is a heterosexual bias that manifests as a homosexual and bisexual fixation, however this may be more simply understood as a sexual fixation. Gzuufy (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Are mixed-orientation marriages between people of the same sex notable?

Straight men married to gay/bi men? Straight women to lesbians/bisexual women? (Obviously, not talking about one gay one bisexual here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorrenigol (talk • contribs) 11:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen it used that way. We can't make up definitions.Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage and definition are two different things--If I were to write about European perceptions of foreigners and crime, I might find that examples the media give of crime by foreigners tend to focus on crimes caused by foreigners from developing or Islamic countries, but no one would say that a crime committed by a Canadian in Germany would not be considered a crime committed by a foreigner, even if it would be difficult to find prominent examples in the public discourse (one finds many more populist claims of sending Turks back to Turkey when they commit crimes than of sending Canadians back to Canada when they commit crimes).--Bhuck (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good day Samrybrendan (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mixed-orientation marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927171721/http://www.odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=term&d=8&t=8186 to http://www.odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=term&d=8&t=8186
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621165041/http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_4138478 to http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_4138478

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)