Posted on 04/26/2002 4:40:06 AM PDT by LarryLied
What do you do when your husband of 20 years tells you he is gay and you feel you have been living a lie? How do your children cope? This 'unusual but not uncommon' situation is made all the harder because, unlike in the US, there is little support here for the straight spouses of homosexuals
Four children, 20 years of marriage and then the bombshell: "I'm gay". When Alison* heard her husband utter these words, her life and her children's lives imploded. As she describes it: "He was out of the closet, and we went in."
"You feel isolation, stigma and shame," says Alison. "You're afraid people will think there's something wrong with you. I would have no difficulty if one of my children was gay, but I do have a difficulty with a man telling me after 20 years of marriage that he is gay, that we lived a lie. If it's sad for him, it's nothing to the pain and grief it's caused to the rest of us."
Alison's reaction to her husband's admission was visceral - she felt out of control, rapidly lost weight, had difficulty sleeping and suffered panic and anxiety. "He had a new identity through his sexuality. But I was going crazy and was very depressed. I felt suicidal. I even rationalised it to myself, thinking, 'if I go, he'll have to be there for the kids'," she says.
"I've been put in the position of having lived a lie. I don't know what love is anymore. What did my marriage vows mean? I have often felt like the figure in Edvard Munch's painting, The Scream. It's a feeling of disorientation and unreality - almost madness. At first, I kept thinking I could knock some sense into him, or that I would wake up one morning and it would all have been a bad dream. Now I want to move beyond it but I don't know how," says Alison, who is still coming to terms with the trauma, two years afterwards.
The US has a strong support network for straight spouses of homosexuals and Alison searched for something similar in the Republic without success. "I feel it would help me to meet women in similar situations to mine," she says.
Feelings of disorientation, physical distress and internalised rage are common among women whose husbands come out, according to Carol Grever's book, My Husband is Gay: A Woman's Guide to Surviving the Crisis.
"Virtually all the \ women I interviewed agreed that their situation was grossly unfair. Their loss of security and isolation in the closet led most to question, 'Why me? What did I do to deserve this?'" Grever felt victimised, confused and hurt when her husband "came out" and left her after 30 years of marriage.
Alison had felt herself fighting for her marriage for several years before the revelation. Her husband's growing detachment led the couple to marriage counselling, where her husband's secret never emerged. Increasingly frustrated, Alison pushed her husband to explain why he was withdrawn.
His answer - that he was gay - was the last thing she expected and, to be honest, she would have found it easier to handle if he had admitted to a heterosexual affair. Yet she felt enormous empathy and grief for him. "At first, I thought it was a midlife crisis, as though he was saying 'I just want to be responsible for myself'. He was in utter turmoil within himself . . . in a very bad place. It became clear to me that it was important for him and the children, that he live with dignity."
So instead of throwing him out of the family home, Alison helped her husband to ease his way into his new life. He stayed in the family home for a considerable time after his admission, and when he left he did so in an organised fashion with Alison's help. Since then, she has taken all financial responsibility for the home and family, so that her husband can use his income to live in decent accommodation. She wants her children to be able to visit their father in a pleasant home.
Feeling "de-sexed" and "neutered" has made Alison re- evaluate her self-image. "I asked myself, if my only sexual partner in my life was gay, what does that make me out to be? I blamed myself, because it seemed that the only man I could attract was a gay man."
The revelations have also complicated her relationships with her teenage children, who have been unable to talk to her about their father. When they were eventually told, three of the four children had already guessed the truth. Alison worries about how her children are privately dealing with their father's sexuality, when they are not yet sure of who they are themselves.
"When my husband changed his identity, he changed ours as well," says Alison. "But it is not something that my children can talk to their friends about. I know that my husband loves our children, but he doesn't have to deal with the day-to-day impact on their lives. It's an awful nightmare - this sense of powerlessness. My husband is out there in the gay community and has friends to talk him through this. But my children and I are like an underground secret society. I would love to meet other women this has happened to."
Joan Rippingale, a counsellor who has been involved for more than a decade with a support group for parents of gay men, sees a desperate need for a support group facilitated by counsellors in which straight spouses could share their experiences.
In response to inquiries made for this article, the Marriage and Relationships Counselling Service (MRCS) has announced that it will facilitate such a group if there is sufficient demand and welcomes calls from women in Alison's situation. It also offers counselling to male/female couples in which homosexuality becomes an issue, a situation the MRCS describes as "uncommon but not unusual either".
*All names have been changed to protect the families involved
The Marriage and Relationships Counselling Service, 38 Upper Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin (tel: 01-6785256).
My Husband is Gay: A Woman's Guide to Surviving the Crisis (The Crossing Press, www.crossingpress.com).
Straight Spouse Network website: www.ssnetwk.org
Ever hear of Lorena Bobbitt? I would recommend Hoffritz scissors or a Wusthof chef knife for a clean, effortless cut. Make sure to feed to dog, or throw in sink disposal unit to preclude medical assistance.
Bet your town was the same way mine was to all minorities. People got along better. The Identical Politics movement wrecked it all. Now groups see slights which don't exist everywhere.
A very key point.
Religion is the ultimate lifestyle choice because only G-d, ultimately, has life.
Shalom.
Well, you addressed it to me, but that is beside the point. I've been known to call them queers on a thread or two, but that's primarly to serve notice that I don't believe they are "normal." Since "queer" is contra to normal, I use that one. I suppose I agree with you on the "rump rangers" concept, but the pro-gay crowd is just as quick with the slurs. World Magazine devoted their entire most recent issue to the very rapid spin of all true believers being no different from the Taliban. (You've seen "tali-bornagain" here on FR, haven't you?)
I think there's a sense that we've been quiet too long. It was reasonable to think that this whole homosexuality thing would go away as the bad dream it should be. There was also reason to believe that gentlemen didn't go to the gutter for their political debate. But, surprisingly, it isn't a bad dream and we're all being dragged into the gutter. Now gentlemen are deciding it's better to jump in and do battle than wait for our wives and children to be dragged in. It is a little understandable if we don't fully know the rules of engagement down here.
If the "homosexuals" were happy to keep their sexual fetishes as private issues in the bedroom then there would be no need for the so-called gay-bashers to discuss them at all. I, for one, would be happy to never have to discuss SAD again. If it would go back in the closet, I would be happy for it to stay there.
Shalom.
What I mean by that is that he compares apples to oranges to grapes to nuts, and I think there's a few carrots tossed in the mix, too.
To start with, he spends an entire section disproving Kinsey's 10% rate of homosexuality. Two problems with that: first, he references that same study, or examinations of that study, no less than 5 times as proof of how degenerate homosexuals are, and second, Kinsey didn't say 10% of the population is homosexual. Kinsey said 4% of the population is exclusively homosexual throughout their lives beginning in adolescence, 8% are exclusively homosexual for at least 3 years between the ages of 16 and 55, 10% are more or less homosexual for at least 3 years between ages 16 and 55.
He also notes in disproving Kinsey Maslow's observation that people tend to lie or withhold intimate sexual secrets -- I guess he felt that some portion of heterosexuals would claim to be homosexual, thus skewing the percentages higher? Feel free to disagree, but it's my feeling that if people are going to lie or withhold sexual secrets, it's going to be in favor of the societal norms, not the opposite. But then, Bryan doesn't bother to take into account Maslow's observation as it would apply to the surveys that say what Bryan likes -- anywhere from 1.1 to 2.8% of American males claim to be exclusively homosexual, and by god, that's rock-solid TRVTH.
Which brings up another point. "Exclusively" homosexual. He muddies the water of what is and what isn't a "homosexual". Dr. Adrian Copeland reported that 40-45% of child molestors have had "significant homosexual experiences" -- that's not "exclusively" homosexual. The Canadian study states 42% "engaged in homosexuality" -- that's not "exclusively" homosexual, either. Even Kinsey's study reported 37% had "at least some overt homosexual experience", but noone has ever claimed that 37% of the population is homosexual because of it -- yet Bryan wishes us to think that "significant homosexual experiences" and "engag(ing) in homosexuality" equals "homosexuals". (I'm purposely ignoring those where he stated some percentage were "homosexual" as it's impossible to know if that's Bryan's statement or what the individual's admitted.)
Jumping down a ways to another fun one, Murder and Mass Murder. (I have no intention of going point by point through this mess, nor of continuing beyond this post -- either you'll understand, or you won't and never will).
John Wayne Gacy killed 33 men and boys. Bryan calls him "a homosexual", which given the events, that may or may not be true. However, he was married twice and had children; on Bryan's surveys and on Kinsey's, Maslow's observation would have been in effect: he never admitted to being homosexual, even in numerous confessions while in prison. He's not part of the 1-3 or 4% -- he's part of the heterosexual numbers because that's where he would have placed himself. And again with the murders, we run into the difference between "exclusively" homosexual and "bisexual" and "practiced homosexuality" and "enaged in homosexuality". Bryan's numbers don't even included "bisexuality". We run into what they were convicted of vs. what they admitted to, and Bryan's rate of homosexuality numbers rely solely on what people were willing to admit.
In conclusion, "homosexual acts" do not equal "admitted being exclusively homosexual" by any stretch of the imagination. Yes, Bryan looked up and found what he was looking for to suit an agenda, but the word-play, twisted definitions, and number-crunching doesn't stand up to any sort of objective examination.
Good point, Fitz. One can't be too careful these days.
That's because there is no such thing as being 'homosexual'. There is only practicing homosexual behavior. And those who practice this behavior are mentally ill by choice.
John Wayne Gacy (IIRC) killed 33 men and boys after practicing homosexual behavior with them. This, as well as the other mass murderers shows the link between the practice of homosexual behavior (or SAD if you prefer) and other destructive and dangerous behaviors. One mental illness makes room for the next as it were.
The common point in all the studies listed in Bryans work is that people with SAD (those who practice homosexual bahavior) are more likely to kill, molest, or be otherwise dangerous to themselves and others.
You can quibble about the 'homosexuality scale' (even though there is no such thing) or you can recognize that these behaviors are inseperably linked to a host of risks to the public and to the individuals involved in them as the data clearly show.
GSA(P)
You really are off in your own little world, aren't you? The ex-gays and the doctors who treat them don't even try to foist that load of bull off on the public.
The point of Bryan's article was to prove "homosexuals", that is people who identify as homosexuals, are a threat to society. He failed.
You may try to twist it into something else, but without making up your own definitions ('there are no homosexuals') and words (SADs), you can't do it, either.
The point of Bryan's article was to prove "homosexuals", that is people who identify as homosexuals, are a threat to society. He failed.
The point of Bryans article is that people who practice homosexual behavior are a threat to society. He succeeded quite well.
Those who self-identify with this perverse behavior are only part of the problem. I don't think any of the priests who've been molesting boys in the RCC have identified themselves as 'gay' but they practice homosexual behavior.
Anyone who practices this perverse behavior is a threat to society, because this behavior is just one symptom of underlying mental disease. Unfortunately this behavior serves as a pretty good indicator of other problems to come. (child abuse, mass murder etc)
The facts don't lie. People who practice homosexual behavior are a danger to themselves and to others. No matter what you choose to believe
GSA(P)
Medications might help.
As for your "I don't want to hire a Gay", what would your stand be toward an Atheist who said "I don't want to hire a Christian"?
I guess my point on that is simple. What does it matter? Does a Christian who angrilly runs about squeeling "Sodomite, Queer, Fag, Puff, Rump Ranger, Butt Pirate, etc." really believe they are doing what God has instructed them to do? Does a Christian who is doing that have a right to whine and snivel when someone else calls them a Bigot? Adversely, when Gays are Bashing Christians, is it any different?
I still say "Live, and Let Live". My life will go on a lot longer if I choose to concentrate on my own Genitals, and not worry about other peoples...
Including certain old, bitter, spinsters with embittered wombs... hahahahah
Additionally no on has ever claimed to be born a Christian. Why would we claim something that is easily observed to be false. That's part of the reason we get perturbed at those who claim to be born 'gay'. It is easily observed to be false. There is no proof for it and all of biology and common sense screams against it.
It seems that the only reason anyone claims to be born with that particular condition is to avoid taking responsibility for choosing it.
GSA(P)
Wow, So running around getting all worked up about (ie obsessed) with what others are doing in their bedrooms is what it means to be "Born Again".
Isn't using your Born Again status as a reason for being so obsessed with Gays somewhat of a behavior in and of itself?
BTW, John, about this SAD thing. Did you come up with that on your own? Or, did you get it from somewhere? If so, Where? Can you site the reference material, research docs, participating Doctors and Medical Facilities? I'd be fasinated to see this material. Since you're claiming it to be Fact, I'd really like to see this material that has convinced you of its validity.
Lastly John, and before you fly off the handle for me asking you this, you claim that you get perterbed by Gays who claim to be born Gay, because they have no proof. What proof have you that your Religion is True? I mean, let's apply YOUR standard of proof, to you and your claims. Can you Prove, any more than Gays can regarding their birth as Gays, the validity of your Religion? Asside from Belief?
Don't get me Wrong, I'm just asking you to provide that which you ask others to provide. If you cannot, then, how can you get so perterbed at others for following your lead.
The real question is how would I know if a person was gay?
Only gays allow themselves to be defined by the sexuality! They are the ones who make the big deal about what goes where.
How would you know? OK, here's a hypothetical for you. Say you post a notice for a job opening (I don't know what line of work you're in). You get an applicant who has an outstanding job history, good references from previous employers, and even lives a mile away from your facility (here in LA that in and of itself would be a huge one). However, this applicant sounds like Liberace. He makes no mention of his "preference", and lives alone. Would you hire him?
Now, same applicant, but now add a "rainbow" sticker on his car. Still, no mention of his "preference". Would you hire him?
I could take that that hypothetical a long way, but the bottom line is where do you draw the line at him becoming "un-hireable"? Is it at admission of his "preferance" or is it at the point where you suspect he "might be".
Now, let's refer to that Atheist Boss. Same applicant, except now, instead of Liberace, this guy sounds like Jerry Falwell. Where would it be OK for him to exclude that applicant for being Christian?
I guess what I'm trying to say Cyber, is where do we draw the line on "discriminating"? When is it OK to exclude someone with whom we personally disagree? Is it OK to discriminate against Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, Mormons, or others. Or further, what about Political Ideology? Would it be acceptable to you if a Company had a "No Conservatives/Republicans need apply" line on a their Want Ads? How about Housing? Restaurants?
BTW Cyber, I'm not trying to attack you with this, you have been very reasoned and intelligent in this discussion. And to be honest, we haven't disagreed on much. Just so you know, I ask this question with respect.
You're selling snake oil, and you know it.
For all of you folk's intolerance towards the Christian Right and their beliefs I think you have a helluva nerve insisting that it's the gays who have no bias & only seek to live and let live.
The Christian Right, which you people are so fond of slandering, bases it's beliefs on the Word of God.
Yes I know, the 'concept' of a Creator is alien & amusing to certain folks.
It's a lot easier to deny what's written in the Bible when you deny the existence of the one who inspired it.
If the Christians grant your wish and 'accept' homosexuality, should they also then begin to steal, murder, and worship false idols? Why shouldn't they? If they're to repudiate one thing denoted in the Bible they might as well repudiate the rest too.
Fortunately, this will not happen.
And it's the Log Cabin Republicans who have to come to terms with this, not vice versa.
I would not hire a person with THE RAINBOW on their car( though I have worked for a gay man before). That is my choice and I see no protection in the original of the Constitution. As it is the Atheist who does not want to hire a Christian, his choice. Government cannot discriminate, I can, the Government cannot force me to accept anyone. Now it may be possible that a State or a locality might make conditions upon a doing business in a State or Town include anti-discrimination. Though I question the authority of a government in forcing a religious or philosophical view. They would be abridging my religious expression by forcing me to hire a Gay. Is that fair to all, maybe not. But, who said life was fair?
Further, I think that a company, say a retailer, who denies service to a segment of the population is placing priorities over profits and will pay for their decision. It is that companies Choice though.
Seems to me, I'm trying to avoid the denominator. It's the venomous Anti-Gays that seem to want to delve into the bedroom activity, or where tab A goes or doesn't go. I want to raise this discussion above that.
You're selling snake oil, and you know it.
How So?
For all of you folk's intolerance towards the Christian Right and their beliefs I think you have a helluva nerve insisting that it's the gays who have no bias & only seek to live and let live.
I'd say if we're gonna have a "helluva nerve" pissing contest Junior, you might wanna re-read what I've written. I've NEVER said Gays should get a pass for behaving that way. Nor should self proclaimed Keepers of the Moral High Road, like you! You wanna talk about Bias? Please...!
The Christian Right, which you people are so fond of slandering, bases it's beliefs on the Word of God. Yes I know, the 'concept' of a Creator is alien & amusing to certain folks.
You People? Man you are sooooooooooooooo far off base, you're hardly worth the trouble. BTW Junior, What would God think of the way you behave, considering your Perfection and Sinlessness?
It's a lot easier to deny what's written in the Bible when you deny the existence of the one who inspired it.
Care to show me where exactly I denied God? Oh, BTW Junior, "Thou Shalt not bear False Witness"
If the Christians grant your wish and 'accept' homosexuality, should they also then begin to steal, murder, and worship false idols? Why shouldn't they? If they're to repudiate one thing denoted in the Bible they might as well repudiate the rest too.
OK, then I'll give you a challenge "He who is without Sin, Please cast the first stone"
Fortunately, this will not happen.
Not as long as Self Righteous, Hateful, Angry Folks are still taking up space. You're probably right. Imagine how awful it would be if people learned to coexist without hating each other. How Terrible. We can't have that!
And it's the Log Cabin Republicans who have to come to terms with this, not vice versa.
You're Right, We should burn them at the Stake, or Stone them. However, I'll leave it to you to light the match, or throw out that first rock, OK. God and I have an agreement, I won't pretend to be perfect, and He won't strike me down with Lightning.
Obviously, you don't have that same agreement. To bad too, it keeps me younger knowing God likes me just as flawed and imperfect as I am.
Frankly, again, I couldn't care less who a person Loves, or associates with, as long as they A: Aren't hurting anyone else (old, bitter, spinsters with embittered wombs excluded) B: Trying to Make their particular Preferences (Sexual, Religious, Political) the "Law if the Land". I mean let's face it, Life is way too short to be fussing about other Folks. Each of us should be free to find the path that brings us happyness, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and helps us be more productive and happy people. Without some Blowhard waging their dirty little finger at us because our path might be different than their's.
To be honest, and this is simply MY OPINION, I would rather not discriminate in issues like hiring, simply because I may be short changing myself on who might be the next employee who is going to come up with something who can really benefit my business. Also, it makes it easier to figure out who to fire if I base that decision on how they screw up, rather than who they screw.
Again, that's just MY opinion. I'll find out whether I'm right of not on Judgement Day (or when the Hard Liners strap me to a stake and put bundles of burning kindling around my feet) :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.