Nightline is tonight unless there’s breaking news UPDATED W/ CORRECT TIME

Which means we are NOT breaking news.

We’re just regular news.

Here’s the link to the promotional video:

I wish I could embed the actual video but… wait.







  video platform

  video management

  video solutions

  video player

I figured it out. Like a boss.

So… yeah. That’s tonight at 11:35 Pacific (or thereabouts. Can somebody smarter than me and less distracted by fear correct me in the comments if that’s not correct?)

Also, Lolly and I set up a Facebook page for The Weed, which looks like it has the makings of being a pretty awesome place to hang out. So, like me there if you want frequent updates and stuff. And if you’re so inclined, share the sucker. Let’s get all the The Weed supporters in one space!

All right. I’ll probably post another introductory thing tonight before the airing and may or may not take this post down.

UDATE: A couple of smarty pantses who understand how time and globes and numbers work (thanks Coach and Rebekah!) have pointed out that it’s actually Eastern. Not Pacific. Except, I also know that it airs at 11:35 here in Seattle because that’s what my DVR told me.

So, basically, look it up if you’re unsure!


  1. I'm actually sorry you came forward. I have thought and thought and thought about this and I don't see how it helps anyone else. I think gay men already knew it was an option to marry women.

    Many gay people think you've given a weapon to those who think gays should 'get over it'. (and how can they not think that, you say it's not for everyone, but how many hopefuls will say: he did it, maybe you can/should too).

    I feel bad for your kids, who had no say in this, but will suffer consequences.

    And no one can ever look at Lolly the same again.

    I don't dislike you. I don't wish you any harm. I just don't think you did the right thing.

    1. Karen, I respectfully disagree. I think gay men maybe knew they could marry gay women, but I doubt they believed there was a way they could be happy in that arrangement. I think Josh's story helps people understand that they have options, but I don't think he has been pushy about this at all. Josh has never asked anyone (to the best of my knowledge) to "get over" their homosexuality.

      And I think that was an unkind thing to say about Lolly. Maybe you don't look at her the same way, and maybe I actually don't either. The way I see her now is a GORGEOUS, tremendous spirit who sticks by her man. She is strong and courageous and I think she gets extra blessings in life and in heaven for her loyalty. I hope people see her that way. I feel certain that that is how her Father in Heaven sees her, though I admit that I probably shouldn't be the one speaking for Him.

    2. My comment probably wasn't 'necessary' and probably wasn't kind. That's unfortunate, because I don't have anything against this family. They seem really nice. I'm just using the comment section as a discussion place.

      I don't think Josh is telling anyone to 'get over it' But many clergy members, friends, leaders, parents have wanted the gay person in their lives to do just that. For years and years the standard advice was to tell gay men to get married.

      His happily ever after story gives ammo to those who want to beat their kids over the head, trying to change them. That's probably a bad thing.

    3. DIscussion is all well and good but when you say that 'no one can ever look at Lolly the same again' – I mean, you do realize you are talking about a real person with feelings right? Now I don't know Lolly and Josh from Adam's house cat – honestly, I don't think I even know a Mormon. I just know that if I would feel incredibly hurt by that statement.

    4. I have never met Lolly either, but I wouldn't be able to look at her the same either.

      What an amazingly strong and compassionate and non-judgemental woman she must be!! She must have the most incredible sense of self-worth.

      And I'm so impressed with their connection that I can't help but want it for my own marriage πŸ™‚

    5. I just realized… not that it matters really, but I made a typing error in my above statement. I said " I think gay men maybe knew they could marry gay women," but meant "women," not strictly gay women.

    6. Karen, I believe that those who are "beating their kids over the head, trying to change them" will do that anyway, regardless of this video. People looking for ammo will use ANYTHING for ammo, and I feel this video helps me to see another point of view on this subject. True, the kids might not have had a say in this, but how many kids don't have a say in the decisions of parents if they want to divorce? Kids are resilliant and they will be stronger for it. It sounds like there are assumptions being made on how people will take this, without giving it a chance. I, myself, am still trying to let this all sink in, and it's a good thing!

    7. Karen, from the reading of your second paragraph it seems you feel strongly that Josh shouldn't have shared his story because of the ramifications that extend from it.

      Should Josh's experience be silenced — should ANY voice be silenced — because we want to control the way others will interpret its implications? On a gut level, that seems very wrong to me.

      We each get to define truth for ourselves, that's our most basic of human rights. The entire idea of censoring a true-to-life experience because we want to define the general public's ideas of truth feels very controlling.

      Yes, some will undoubtedly make mistakes — some, quite large — as they figure out what truth is. But Josh and Lolly's wonderful marriage, which has required so much love and understanding — is a wonderful model to every adult in a committed relationship about what real love looks like:

      Love is patient. Love is kind. Love understands, forgives, and is quick to allow for differences. True love presses forward with optimism and generosity. I find so much to admire in their story, why dwell on assumptions some ambiguous "others" "could" make?

    8. "Should Josh's experience be silenced — should ANY voice be silenced — because we want to control the way others will interpret its implications? On a gut level, that seems very wrong to me."

      I agree. Karen has voiced an opinion that I have seen others express on the Internet, or heard when I talk to friends and I feel the same way as you do Mickelle. Sometimes it seems like LGBT people want to be heard, and respected, BUT they only want their way heard and respected. No other options allowed. Seems hypocritical to me.

      "And no one can ever look at Lolly the same again."

      I disagree and I have to say (sorry Karen) that I think this is a really shallow point of view. I don't even get it. Why would we look at her any differently? Do you also look at someone differently if you find out they have schizophrenia, or depression? What if they are vegetarian, or have a different political view than your own?

      I have a motto that applies here: "Your ignorance is not my problem." In other words if other people make judgements about me due to their own lack of understanding, then their opinion has no value to me.

      IF people look at Lolly or Josh any differently now (in any negative sense), then their ignorance is not Lolly or Josh's problem.

      No offense Karen, I respect your right to share your feelings, but at the same time I feel the right to express my own even when they differ.

    9. I think that Josh, in his desire to share the truth, has put his children and wife in a negative spotlight. That's what I think, and I do not see much benefit to it. In other words, the pain (that I think will follow) is not worth any gain that might occur.

      In fact, I assert that there was very little gained.

      Not 5 minutes ago, as I was driving in the car, I heard a SLC radio host taking calls, specifically about Josh and Lolly. I heard 4 callers say (basically): what's the big deal? We all have challenges and negative personality aspects to overcome. Josh SHOULD overcome them, he's doing what any person, especially LDS should do. A couple of them made negative comments about Gay people wanting attention.

      That's pretty much my reasoning for saying that although Josh and Lolly are lovely people, doing their best to raise a good family and live the standards of the Mormon church, the 'Unicorn Club' isn't accomplishing much.

      Do you see what I mean? A lot of other nice Mormons, who hear their story think: SEE!? You gay people just get married. They did, you can too.

      Sadly, I think this could hurt more than it helps. Because some gay people will feel unsupported if they don't marry a heterosexual. The number of unsuccessful mixed sexual orientation marriages I've read about far outnumber the successful– leaving many spouses and kids hurt, so having more people advocate for it is not desirable.

      I am not saying the Josh is pushing that agenda, I've never seen him say: come on gay men, go marry a women. But it is being interpreted that way. One caller specifically said, "Josh is telling people it (being gay) can be overcome"

      I'm sorry that I came across as rude. The comment about Lolly did sound harsh. Honestly, to me, she seems nice and genuine… and I think she's trying to be a good person. I am not sure how to put into words my exact feelings, just that it did her no favor by sharing their sexual orientation.

      I've told you what I think are the negatives:
      – negative attention to their family
      – less support of gays who choose not to marry (heterosexuals)

      What has been gained?

    10. …and please realize that I am a Mormon
      I am not anti-gay.

      I have friends and family members that are gay and straight that keep the church's standards of morality and those who don't. I don't treat any of them with rudeness nor contempt. I'm actually rather non judgmental (in real life). I just don't care who my friends have sex with (except for an affair, I really don't have much patience for someone who would have an affair–)

    11. Karen, I am so grateful that Josh has told his story. And what I see as the important part of his truth is that sexual orientation is not a choice and is not changeable. This is very different from what a lot of religious organizations have taught and tried to do. He is saying that he didn't choose same sex attraction and he can't make it go away and it isn't healthy to try. On top of that his choice to marry Lolly only works because they fell in love first and their relationship is founded on more than just sexual attraction. This wouldn't work for everyone who just wanted to'make our work'. Josh and Lolly wanted to spend their loves and eternity together. This is a powerful message that your sexual attraction is uncontrollable and it is ok and our job is to love people no matter what. Not to judge or condemn or change but just to love.

    12. I think this world is made up of too many closed minded people. We need people like Josh and Lolly to help people close their mouths and open their minds. Lolly is an excellent wife, mother, and role model for us all. Their children will be perfectly fine! These children are LOVED beyond belief! I don't believe their fathers sexuality will adversely affect them in any way. What will affect them is people with closed minds who lead them to believe there is something wrong.

    13. Karen, I agree with you about the possible harmfulness of what Josh and Lolly are doing, but the harmfulness I see is not in them telling their story. I want all the stories to be heard, from all sides. The harmfulness I see here is in the way this story is being presented and promoted.

      I was thrilled to hear about this story, at first. I've dreamed for ten years of stories like this being publicized, to help reduce prejudice against mixed-orientation marriages. Even so, something has been troubling me from the very start. It has taken weeks, and a lot of effort, for me to pin it down. Here's what I'm thinking now:

      Exodus International is turning away from orientation change and from stigmatizing gays, and one way to revive its fortunes might be to promote the idea that a man can be gay, and happily married to a woman, at the same time. The way that Josh's story is being presented and promoted, serves that need on a silver platter. It has everything Exodus International could wish for:
      – A highly publicized story about a picture-perfect family life of a gay man married to a woman for ten years, with three children, every member of the family a picture of health and happiness.
      – An associated blog which subtly and indirectly depreciates gays and homosexuality, without saying anything that directly and openly stigmatizes gays.
      – Publicity for an associated counseling service for "helping individuals and couples combat addiction (both chemical and sexual/pornographic), LGBT issues, ADHD/ADD, depression, OCD, anxiety, and post traumatic stress disorder resulting from abusive situations."
      – No direct association with Exodus International.

  2. I am in love with your love story! It is beautiful and so very inspirational. I wish you guys all the luck in the world,although it seems you already have absolutely everything you need.

    I will be watching tonight and following along on your awesome journey.

  3. I think you guys are a fantastic family! I graduated with your brother Chris and was in the same ward with you and your family… You have a couple of amazing parents!

    Karen… I think you should have kept that to yourself

  4. I don't think there has ever been a time in the last five years that I have regretted NOT having cable, but today is it. I support you in spirit though and hope to see your interview soon. You will be great. This is great. You two are great, and your family is great. (That is so much great–let's all have dinner!)

  5. Your family is adorable and your love for one another makes me smile! Your connection to each other regardless of your orientation is obvious to me. Your family has just as much right to be happy and successful as anyone else does. There are many choices in life, and I respect your ability to make the right choice for you and yours. I'll be watching tonight!

  6. Josh and Lolly's strength in telling their story has helped sooooooooooo many!!!! Me being number one, as mormon mother who struggles with SSA I felt alone, ashamed, disusted with myself, and basically hopeless. There story has pulled me up and let me know I am not alone, I am OK, I"m trying to be the best person I can and do what I know to be right even with this stuggle. I feel they shared and told their story for me, and I can't thank them enough. I follow their story daily, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!!!

  7. Josh, I'm glad you're on Nightline. I'm also glad you came forward about your attractions to men. I'm a woman who used to identify as a lesbian and later married a man, and it is now a 19-year marriage. I have been grateful for the choices I've made and that I met a man I actually became attracted enough to marry. Of course there are other people like us, but most do not want to come forward because we hear so many comments like Karen's and from other people who judge us for a variety of reasons. Our voices are important for others to hear and see. The message that this does not ever work, long term, for anyone like us is false. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone. We're all different. We just need to show people one of the different paths, and that it really does work for SOME people.

    Thanks Josh. You're awesome.

  8. The Weeds are not responsible for other people who choose to use this information as "ammo." Many good things in this world are used in the wrong way. Religion is sometimes used to shame others. Atheism is sometimes used to shame the religious. Education is sometimes used to shame the uneducated. Money is sometimes used to shame the poor.

    Josh sharing his personal story (and I would add that he has made it very clear he is not suggesting other gay people do the same) does not make him responsible for those who will use his story to push other gay people into heterosexual relationships.

    His children are better off as a result of him coming out. Openness and honesty are good for families. As a therapist, I see how much secrets harm families. If Josh were to refrain from coming out because he was worried about what others thought, his children might learn to feel ashamed about this topic. Josh and Lolly are showing that there is nothing to be ashamed of, and that is good for everyone.

  9. The text at the end of the video says 11:35pm Eastern Time. Is that right?

    Josh and Lolly, you have so many people rooting for you. Of course, Heavenly Father and Jesus are the most important ones, but there are many of us others as well.

  10. Grrr – Pacific Time and I could have watched it over breakfast but Eastern Time..? I've fallen in love with the Weeds, but I don't know if it is 4.35am love.

  11. So impressed with the commenters on this post for staying respectful. And the Weeds–super impressed with you of course. But I have to say, Lolly looked stunning on the clip. God bless!

  12. I have loved following your blog! My brother came out as being gay a while ago and it's been so hard for me to grasp and understand! He went on a mission, lived such a good life, sucked at sports but who cares that wasn't his cup of tea. When he came home from his mission he was in love with a girl that he was in love with all through high school. He wanted to marry her. She rejected him over and over. It broke him. He told God, "If you don't take these feelings away from me I am never returning to church." Of course God didn't take it away. So I watch him struggle, searching for happiness, never content, doing alcohol and partying because he feels like he HAD to choose this kind of lifestyle. I am so glad that there are choices. That having SSA does not mean you are bound to choose the gay lifestyle. Thank-you thank-you for being so brave and helping others understand SSA a lot more. I've posted it before but it probably got lost in the mix. This is something else that helped me understand where SSA sometimes generates from.
    Thank-you again. I love your courage

  13. "So I watch him struggle, searching for happiness, never content, doing alcohol and partying because he feels like he HAD to choose this kind of lifestyle."

    The "gay lifestyle" (how I loathe that term) does not automatically include alcohol and partying. In fact, the last wedding I went to that was between two women was completely dry. In any case, my gay and lesbian friends who are married or single, hold down jobs, pay taxes, vote and basically live as model citizens are living the "gay lifestyle" as surely as someone who is being self-destructive is. Just like with straight folks.

    My son is gay and he leads a beautiful, constructive, loving life. He is currently a very successful college student who looks forward to marrying and having children someday. My son has the peace that comes with knowing he is unconditionally loved by his family, friends and by G-d. I hope your brother is able to find that peace as well. He deserves it.

    1. I very much hope that my brother will find his peace. That is what breaks my heart so much. He's in his 30s and not settled down, his friends call him "Momma Bill" cuz he takes care of everyone. He's so unhappy. There is so much that goes into his story of how he got to where he is. He pushes us as family away and chooses his friends. It all just makes me sad. I really hope he can find his peace!

  14. oy. This story is going to be used by Mormons and more LGBTQ Mormon youth are going to attempt/commit suicide. Sadly, that's the bottom line. Sigh. I wish it weren't and I wish it were a giant step forward that Mormons are realizing that being gay isn't something you can change. Well, now Mormons might not hate themselves for being gay but instead they'll just hate themselves for not being able to marry someone of the opposite sex or to remain single. It's more a giant step sideways.

    1. You think more LGBTQ Mormon youth will commit suicide because of THIS story? Sorry, but that's laughable. Josh isn't bullying anyone. He's not foisting his choices onto others. He's sharing his personal story. If someone shares a personal story on a blog in a respectful and positive way and then other people, with their own individual sets of challenges, choose to commit suicide, should we really put that on the blogger? I guess it would be better if we just slapped a muzzle on anyone in a mixed orientation marriage, huh? Only homosexuals who choose to act on their same-sex attraction should be allowed to share their stories. I guess LGBTQ youth, despite their religious beliefs, should only be shown one possible option in life.

    2. That's actually not what I said up there at all. And I wish it were laughable but alas, THIS story is being used to pressure LGBTQ youth that Josh's option can be their option too. Sigh. Josh's sharing it is not the issue, it's the Mormons getting all excited that his option can be the option for their children/grandchildren, etc. and foisting it upon them. If people really thought that this was just his story and didn't apply to anyone else, they wouldn't be as beside themselves with excitement as they are. They'd think, oh that's a nice story that works for that one person. Instead, it's woohoo! a solution for my son/daughter etc, let me foist this idea upon them.
      And yeah, ideally LGBTQ Mormon youth wouldn't have to be told that they can never be who they really are but of course we don't live in such a world. We live in world where some believe and foist on to their children practically before they have conscious thought that the big guy in the sky is upset about many things but mainly upset if you are living as a gay person. Forget the suffering of most of the world that live in poverty and die of preventable diseases, what really ticks off god is gay people living as gay people. And that's the world we live in. It's the added pressure that's creating the body count not Josh sharing his story. If it were just his story, then you or anyone wouldn't see it as an option because it would just be his story.
      Actually, I think it is not only a step sideways but a step backwards as well,given all the woohooing by Mormons on this blog.
      Once Josh's story airs, there will be a lot of people coming to this blog, not just Mormons. You might want to be ready because maintaining the level of anger you have over my comment might be hard to sustain when others with views different from yours start to comment. Generally, arguing with facts and reality usually works better than anger in getting people to hear what you are saying.

    3. So sad that you would assume all Mormons are going to pressure all LGBTQ youth into taking this path. For me, as a Mormon who has a gay brother, it only presents an alternative path. Something that can be considered. If you've read his original coming out post, it has reached so many people that are in his similar situation- having SSA and being a commited heterosexual relationship. It's given comfort that they are not alone, that they are not the only people dealing with this complex issue in their marriage. And too, it will help those LGBTQ youth because Josh tells them it's ok. It's ok what you are feeling. Obviously you have not read the original post!

    4. AnonymousJuly 19, 2012 7:45 PM–

      "THIS story is being used to pressure LGBTQ youth that Josh's option can be their option too."

      I'm sure some might use this story to pressure gay youth, but I think these people would have done that with or without this story. (And honestly, if your goal is to pressure someone, there are probably better stories to use. Josh isn't the first person in a heterosexual marriage to admit that he is homosexual, and he shares his story in such a compassionate, understanding way that I think a lot of the people trying to pressure gay youth would probably end up looking elsewhere.)

      Plus, I think it's important to make a distinction between pressuring people and presenting them with more information and options. I suspect there are a lot of homosexual youth out there with similar experiences to Josh's. They recognize that their sexuality is a core component of who they are, but they also recognize that their religious beliefs are equally important to them. For those who must eventually choose between the two, I think a story like Josh's could be very helpful. It illustrates a possibility. It won't be the right choice for everyone, but it will be helpful to some.

    5. As a Mormon, when I read about Josh's story, I thought -wow, what an example of love, acceptance and compassion. I found it inspiring on many levels and for many situations. It inspires me to be a better person. I didn't think how I can use this to control others…

    6. Great comment Joel. I felt the same way. It's strange. Since Josh first posted about this, I've read a ton of comments–here and on other sites–accusing Mormons of using his story to control, pressure, or hurt others. I'm not really sure why some people are so convinced this is happening, as I haven't seen much of that at all. In fact, critics began airing this complaint almost immediately after Josh wrote the Club Unicorn post, before anyone would have had much of an opportunity to use it for any purpose.

    7. one more time: Mormons are going to foist Josh's story onto LGBTQ youth. The youth will feel even more pressure, the suicide rate will not decrease, if anything, it will increase. Deny it, be sarcastic about it forever but it does not change the fact that the Mormon Church has blood on its hands. Just ask some of the parents whose LGBTQ Mormon children have ended their own lives. But seriously, other than that, I find Mormons to be really nice people. It's just this one area.

    8. Anon at 1:39 PM

      I feel awful for those families whose LGBTQ youth have ended their own lives. But it's unfair to put their blood on the Mormon church. There's no question that the Church's doctrines might make these kids feel guilty if they have acted on their homosexual feelings, or might make them feel hopeless whether they have acted on them or not. But the Church and its leaders preach those doctrines because they believe them to be true. They cannot control how other people will react to that truth. If the Church changed its doctrines every time they made someone feel guilty or hopeless, the Church would stand for nothing.

    9. You want your church to stand for something but you only want that to have positive consequences. The real world does not work that way.

      "But it's unfair to put their blood on the Mormon church."

      It's not unfair. Not at all. To put the entire blame on the Mormon church would be unfair in the vast majority of cases of GLBTQ youth suicide but to pretend that the Mormon Church has clean hands? No, I cannot abide by that as it defies reason and logic.

      When a church is working hard to withhold rights from citizens who are not even members of that church, children are listening. They are learning. And what some of them are learning is that they are seen second-class citizens. Seen as "less than." They are learning that what they thought was unconditional love is not. And that can be too much.

      If you want to stand for something, anything, then there are consequences. Sometimes those consequences, not matter how well the intentions were, are horrific. Only you can decide if taking the stand was worth it. A lot of people think it is. I disagree with them.

    10. Fresh Hell,
      I feel like what you are saying is that whenever a church teaches that a particular behavior is sinful, the church is responsible for whatever reactions people may have to its teachings. This makes no sense to me. We all speak the truth as we see and understand it. We have no control over what other people do with that truth. I have read many of your posts on this site, and I think when you call people prejudiced or bigoted you believe what you are saying is true. So let's say I take one of your posts and internalize it to the point of deciding my life isn't worth living anymore and I ought to just kill myself. Is my blood on your hands? Absolutely not, because it is 100% my choice what I do with your words.

    11. not so much 100% a young person's choice if everyone in their lives is telling them that they must never ever be who they are because it is evil. Yes, I know y'all believe that being gaya is separate from who a person is but it isn't. So if you are young and everyone in your LDS bubble tells you, both in words and actions, that who you are is inherently and deeply wrong, then choice becomes a different thing. Unless you yourself have experienced such a thing,which I will call abuse and bullying but I know you will disagree, you have no idea. You simply don't. The straight privilege goes a long way. It continually stuns me that straight people think that they have any understanding of what a gay person goes through and equate it to their struggles. Straight people have no idea. But I am also fully aware that what I am saying will not be heard by people, and sorry to overuse the phrase, still in the LDS bubble surrounded mainly by LDS, reading mainly LDS literature,, etc. It is then my bad for trying.

    12. What you're saying is that anyone who isn't gay has no right to discuss issues that affect gay people. And yet at the same time you are accusing the Mormon Church of some pretty heinous crimes against the gay community. I joined the conversation not to attack gays but to defend my church. I don't know what it's like to be gay, but I do know what it's like to be attacked for my beliefs (which in my mind define me way more than my orientation does). I also know what it's like to face the reality that i have natural tendencies that are sinful. So I don't think I'm disqualified from discussing gay issues as they relate to the Mormon Church anymore than you are disqualified from discussing Mormon doctrine as it relates to gays. Telling someone that their point is invalid because they have a different orientation than you is not a good argument.

  15. Russ Gorringe said he is living proof that being gay and attempting to marry and live a heterosexual lifestyle leads to heartbreak. The Utah man said he was married for 25 years to a woman, raised four children, and was even a member of Evergreen International, a group that worked to "convert" Mormons who are gay.

    Gorringe said he finally stopped living a lie 14 years ago when his struggle with homosexuality became too much to bear, and he attempted suicide during a family vacation.

    Gorringe eventually divorced his wife, and is now openly gay. He said he thought he could overcome his homosexuality, but after decades of struggle, decided he wasn't being fair to himself or his wife.

    "I believed that someday, if I was faithful, God would bless me," Gorringe said, "but I found that I had to live a life of integrity. I deserved to be happy, and so did she."
    – ABC News

    1. Why post this? It's like saying to Josh and Lolly, "You guys will never make it. See, here's an example of a couple who tried to do what you're doing but couldn't." Even if that's true–which neither you nor anyone else can predict–what is the point of posting it here? What are you trying to accomplish? I could share examples of homosexual relationships that didn't last. I could share examples of mixed orientation marriages that do work. Your post proves nothing and it helps no one.

    2. It will also be on Nightline, that interview with Gorringe, I believe as it was on the Nightline website with the interview with the Weeds.
      And no, it's actually not like saying that no matter how mad it makes you.

    3. Well, a side benefit might be that you get so so distracted by how mad you are at me that it stops you from pressuring Mormon LGBTQ youth for even a millisecond. But what might also distract you is for you to research and post positive stories of mixed orientation marriages. That might work too. So, as such, I look forward to what you will post! please spend hours researching it. Days even. Weeks! Months! Post thousands of stories! Be so darned busy that you miss the 'have you pressured an LGBTQ youth today?" weekly meeting.
      anyway, equal stories, equal time.
      Careful, the non-Mormon pagans are coming. Be ready.

    4. Well,a side benefit would be that it will make you so so upset that it causes you to miss the weekly, 'have you pressured your LGBTQ Mormon youth today?" meeting.
      But the main idea was story for story.
      But please, post positive 'mixed orientation' stories – there are some out there. I've read many actually. I look forward to it.
      Also, I'm trying to accomplish waking people up. Not happening I see.
      But get ready, the non Mormons are coming. That's going to have to be a whole lot of righteous indignation on your part.

    5. Ok, I apologize for the anger in my posts. For what it's worth, here's where I'm coming from. I don't have a problem with what you or anyone else thinks about homosexuality, and I have never in my life pressured an LGBTQ youth to do anything. What bothers me is when I see people support a gay person's choice to live a gay lifestyle but refuse to support a gay person's choice to live a heterosexual lifestyle.

      Maybe that was not the intended message of your post, but that's how it came across to me. Considering how hard those in the LGBT community fight for people to simply accept them for who they are, rejecting the experiences of others who are in mixed orientation marriages as inauthentic or labeling their choices as foolish and doomed for failure seems hypocritical to me.

    6. Hi. I don't think Josh's marriage is inauthentic nor do I think his choice is foolish. I also think he certainly has the right to share his story. I don't reject experiences of people in 'mixed orientation' marriages.
      It is the way the story will be used that I am concerned about. Some on here keep shouting that it is just Josh's story and he doesn't want it to be used as an example, etc.
      But it is being used as an example. That''s why Mormons are so excited on here – Josh's story can be used as an example to other gay people. And that will put even more pressure on those already struggling.
      That said, I'm realizing more and more that Mormons come at this from a perspective that would have been held by others about 50 years ago. That's not an insult, just their perspective. So to them, Josh's story indeed might be seen as one of hope and radicalism and give them the ability to be able to not hate themselves if they are gay. So that is great. It seems that for so long the whole gay thing was tremendously taboo to even discuss in Mormon churches and Josh's story is helping to change that. So good again.
      At the same time, his story is being used as a ''third way'' even though he says it shouldn't be. And this puts extra pressure on LGBTQ youth to be able to marry someone of the opposite sex.
      So this has nothing to do with the right of Josh to share his story, of course he has that right. That is not in question.
      And the fact that his story will help gay Mormons to stop hating themselves and feeling great shame from what has been instilled by their church is also great. The problem comes in when Mormons, still desperate to believe that being gay is only and all about sex, will use his story to pressure vulnerable LGBTQ youth to do it Josh's way. That's the issue. And that is happening.
      Also, Mormon beliefs are of course reinforced on this blog which makes ignoring/denying/mocking what I have to say super easy. If you want a wider worldview – and I think that any religious person would welcome learning more about people they are hoping to convert – head over to Huffington Post's story on this blog and the comments there or somewhere else. It might help to give a different perspective. Sadly, there is mocking over there too as there is here of people with different ideas. Although i'd expect religious folk to kinda rise above the temptation to mock.

    7. I agree Gemma, I was taken back as well by the lack of tolerance in the Huffington Post commentator's. It seems that people only extend tolerance if you prescribe to their agenda. I don't see only two camps in regards to homosexuality. As a society when we do this it marginalizes every one in between. It can be a complex issue for many and just because one person chooses a different path from another doesn't mean they are wrong.

    8. No, it does not mean they are wrong at all, I completely agree. And I trust then that when people choose to live a gay life, that their path also isn't wrong.
      Gay people don't have an agenda any more than Josh has an agenda. As for the comments on Huffington Post – I also don't like it when people resort to sarcasm to make their points, although that happens on here too to a rather surprising degree. Intelligent discussion seems to often go out the window as the sarcasm and defensiveness take over. That's not great either.
      For lack of a better way to put it – because I'm learning that Mormons are on the part of the track that non-religious people were say 50 years ago in relation to their understanding of homosexuality I can understand a bit better how Josh's reveal would seem like a revelation. But lots of people don't know that and therefore don't realize just how important to Mormons Josh's story is. They might just see it as a continuation of the Mormon agenda to deny civil rights to gay people. When in fact, it seems that the story actually is moving Mormons along the track a bit.
      Also, I'm sure I could meet a million Mormons and they'd all be really, really nice. But if I look to the Mormon church institution, the head guys (and they are all guys) have long battled to keep civil rights from gay people. Meeting individual super nice Mormons doesn't change that fact.
      The tired old arguments of living a gay life being a complete choice, that straight people can totally understand the difficulties of being a gay person, that gay people have an agenda – these are all arguments from 50 years ago. I can see that but others may not. And the argument that gay people don't think Josh is right to live the way he does – other than some unfortunate reactionary comments on Huffington Post and elsewhere – is not the case. We are happy to let people live and let live as long as that is extended to us as well. But the Mormon church institution – not necessarily the nice Mormon individuals – have long tried to not extend that to gay people.

    9. "We are happy to let people live and let live as long as that is extended to us as well. But the Mormon church institution – not necessarily the nice Mormon individuals – have long tried to not extend that to gay people."

      The Church opposes same-sex marriage, just like a huge portion of the rest of the population, and it encourages its members to exercise their political rights in that regard. It also discourages its members from acting on same-sex feelings, as many other churches do. You can consider that an intrusion into your life, but, all things considered, the Church's actions are pretty consistent with a "live and let live" attitude. Nothing the church does stops you from living your life how you want. You are free to have a relationship with anyone you choose. And like anyone else, if enough people support your political views, you can vote to change the marriage laws where you live.

    10. 53% of Americans support same sex marriage according to a 2011 gallup poll.
      Married couples in the US have 1138 federal rights and protectons that those in civil unions are not allowed. So yeah, that's an intrusion. I'm not sure how that is a live and let live attitude. It's the opposite actually. The church has actively sought to creat new laws in California and Hawaii to specifically deny me the right to those 1138 federal rights and it is trying to Maryland as well. The church wasn't even upholding laws, it was CREATING laws specifically to keep rights from me. So, no, that is not live and let live.
      Nor is it live and let live when the church so ingrains its hatred of gay equal rights that LGBTQ Mormons are killing themselves. And okay, many religions (not just churches) also do this but none as virulently as the Mormon Church.
      By 'encouraging its members to exercise their political rights' i take it to mean getting their support to pass laws that are created specifically to take away my rights as an American citizen. What you have said is not about faith or feelings, it is about the fact that the Mormon Church has worked and is working to deny me equal rights.

    11. This whole argument of "equal" rights is hogwash. It won't be truly equal until we allow any kind of marriage that any person might want to enter into. Unless you support polygamy, bigamy, incestuous marriage, underage marriage, and any other kind of marriage anybody might want, you're not supporting EQUAL rights.

    12. It wasn't intended to be hateful. I honestly meant it as a legit argument. The big difference in my mind between the LGBTQ "equal rights" movement and the equal rights movements of women and racial minorities is that women and racial minorities are seeking exactly equal treatment whereas the gay community does not advocate extending marriage equality to other types of relationships. Women just want the same rights and opportunities as men; there is no third gender out there that both men and women feel comfortable discriminating against. Same with racial minorities. They seek the same treatment for all races, not just some races.

      In my mind, the problem with viewing same-sex marriage as the next great civil rights cause is that the issue of marriage equality is fundamentally different at its core. Even if same-sex marriage is legalized in all 50 states, other types of marriages, such as polygamous, polyandrous, and underage relationships, will still be discriminated against. Those who defend the traditional definition of marriage are by and large fine with this because they recognize marriage as a right that probably always will and probably always should be limited to certain relationships. But, from what I can tell, the LGBT community is also fine with this. Their push for "equal" rights seems to only extend far enough to include their own relationships and no farther. They don't embrace polygamists. They don't embrace NAMBLA.

      At bottom, what I'm saying is that the gay community isn't really advocating equal rights because, when it comes to marriage, equal rights is something almost all of us oppose. The question has always been and will continue to be where to draw the unequal line.

  16. I think radical that Mormons can now say the word ''gay'' without using the word 'hate' in the same sentence. Baby steps but steps nonetheless.

    1. last time i checked mormons dont use gay and hate in the same sentance….maybe you should get to know a mormon for real instead of heresay

    2. Agreed! Mormons do not hate gay people! I know so many gay people from relatives to neighbors to friends. I'm Mormon, and I live in Utah and I have family and friends who are gay? GASP! We would not be true followers of Christ if we were the ones to cast the first stone at others. I don't see Mormons anywhere having a 'I hate gays' forum. So please, meet some of your fellow Mormons just as stated above!

    3. I agree with these last two replies. I think part of the reason so many people associate Mormons with hating gays is that the LDS Church has very clear doctrines regarding sin. Some people interpret this as hate, but there's a huge difference between being clearly identifying behavior that is sinful and hating people who engage in that behavior. Jesus often pointed out when an action was sinful, but He never preached hate. He often challenged and encouraged people to change some of their behaviors, but that did not prevent Him from showing love for them at the very same time.

      Of course, that doesn't mean that some individual Mormons haven't been guilty of hateful acts. But as an organization, the LDS Church's message regarding homosexuality has never been one of hate. Like most churches, it teaches that certain behaviors are sins and encourages its members to refrain from doing those things. But it also teaches us to love others, since we all struggle to overcome some sin or another.

    4. The LDS church institution has long worked and works to keep civil rights from gay people. That's hate in my books.
      And being gay isn't a behaviour any more than being straight is a behaviour. Constantly reducing homosexuality to sex is unfair and not accurate. Being gay is as much a part of someone as being straight is. If you are straight and have all of the straight privilege that goes with it, then you have no idea what it is like for gay people in the United States.

    5. Oh ok.. You know exactly how the Mormons think… And it's all the Mormons fault…. The Mormons are horrible people.. Let bind them .. And burn them to death for having a different opinion then the gay community… It's all the Mormons fault that gay people commit suicide… It's all thr Mormons fault they can't have a civil union( mind you Mormons only make up a smug of the world population.. Let's blame thr Mormons for world hunger now and poverty…. What else can the Mormons be blamed for..

      I love the most about Mormons are nice BUT….. Lol you all are hilarious… For people who want the tolerance you sure have a lot to say about the Mormons lol.. Just so hypocritical I think

    6. Yes, the Church opposes same-sex marriage. But once again, this position is motivated by its doctrine regarding sin, not by hatred. You can interpret that position as hatred if you like, but opposing a right that someone wants to have is not the same thing as hating the person. I oppose people's rights to get married underage without their parents' permission. I oppose the rights of three or more people to marry each other. I oppose the right of someone to marry his cousin. I oppose the rights of people to speed, to not wear a seatbelt, to engage in prostitution, to drink alcohol underage, to smoke marijuana, etc. I don't want people to have a civil right to do any of those things, but it doesn't mean I hate people who want to do them.

    7. people always resort to sarcasm when they are unable to make a legitimate argument, Anon 1:56.
      And Anon 2:33, working actively to deny equal rights to me because I am gay is hatred and not equivalent to my not wearing a seatbelt.
      I am a gay person commenting on how the Mormon Church as actively worked to deny me rights. The response on here is either to deny that or say that it is just fine for the church to do that or to be sarcastic. That is not such a great witness. If I were Mormon, I would somehow work to reign in the sarcasm and be the loving people you tell me that you are. I would also learn what the Mormon Church is actually doing to eny me rights.

    8. Your taking away my rights to live in gay free society too… So who's really taking away rights. I dot my children didn't ask to be exposed to sassan and gamorah… But we are because you people can't keep your sexuality in check!!! Dude.. I don't wanna hear about your sex life thank you!!! Keep it under wraps… It's sick just thinking about gay sex and I'm not even Mormon!!!! To each is own .. But don't try to get me to believe something I will never believe and call me a hater because I think gayness is not only slightly sinful but gravely and hell like sinful… Up there close to the sin of murder and adultery . You might say I am judging.. But I am making a well informed judgement call there's a difference. There is nothing biologically right about gay sex.. On top of the sin part of it..

    9. and what about the catholic church, etc.????? Mormon's don't deny you of any rights. If you are referring to prop 8….last time I checked mormons arent the only ones that live in California. There are all kinds that voted there, that vote everywhere. The courts have had their say as well. We can't just slough all negativity or frustration on the Mormons. They are some of the most kind and loving people I know.

    10. Mormons could be the kindest and most loving people that ever existed on the earth. That does not alter the fact that the Mormon Church funded prop 8 campaigns and invited in the Catholics and other fundamentalist Christian religions to join them. They had a huge hand in orchestrating the passing of Prop 8. Those are facts, not arguable by how nice Mormons are. Either individual Mormons are not aware or choose not to be aware of how involved the church was or they do know and don't havea problem with it. Again, it is not the individual Mormons that are a problem but the Mormon church institution that is behind these campaigns. What is so frustrating on here is that most are choosing to not argue with facts because the facts are against them. So they get defensive and sarcastic and mean, which veers attention away from the facts. Individual Mormons are lovely, their church heads, not so much.

  17. I think the key to living a happy life is to be true to yourself. (and I say that as a Mormon, even though the Primary answer would be to serve God and others …)

    Josh and Lolly are doing just that. Josh isn't denying that he's gay, or fervently praying for God to take it away so he can be happy (like Russ Gorringe). He took a good look at himself and what his options in life were and he made a decision.

    Josh and Lolly, it makes me wish I lived in your ward and could be your friends! I've been following your blog since you first came out, and I know with this Nightline interview that things are going to get real big real fast. Hang in there. There are tons of people out there rooting for you, and I don't have to tell you how much our Heavenly Father loves you. Good Luck!

  18. I appreciate them telling their story because of what it may do for straight people. I used to judge the homosexual community, I'm sorry to admit, but all of the politics have taught me a lot about it and given me things to ponder, and the story has given me better understanding and compassion for this kind of circumstance.

  19. I'll be watching! Congratulations Lolly ans Josh for having such national platform for your love story. I just watched the Brene Brown TED talk on vulnerability being the key to joy. Thanks for being whole hearted and vulnerable with your story.

  20. Saw it on the east coast. I don't want to spoil anything for you until you've seen it in your own time zone, and I have some very passionate things I want to comment on, but I think you will be happy with it! It is going to make a lot of people think, and not just say, "Oh, look gay people can get married to the opposite sex!" It will provoke questions on spirituality, sexuality and judgment of others, and at the same time honor you personal choice.

  21. Saw your story on Night Line. I too am a gay man that was married to a woman for almost 10 years. I knew that when i was married to her that I was attracted to men but still had a love and feelings for her. She was the only woman that I needed in my life. We did eventually wind up divorcing but are still best friends today. we speak to each other at least twice a week. She know that she can rely on me for an ear to listen , a shoulder to cry on and knows I am always there. I am so glad that you have made the announcement and pray that Heavenly Father blesses you and your family.

  22. Josh, once when I saw some people being stigmatized in some Internet discussions, and put myself in the line of fire, some of the hardest arrows for me to take were from someone who continually posted dark insinuations about my character and motives, while carefully avoiding saying anything openly against me. Whenever I tried to discuss with him what he meant by those insinuations, he either ignored me, or belittled my questions and concerns about what he was saying.

    It would have been much easier for me, if he had said openly whatever he was trying to insinuate about me.

    That's why I'm saying openly to you now that you look to me like a wolf in sheep's clothing. I see that now as part of what's been gnawing at me from the beginning, in spite of my joy at seeing your story publicized, and the wonderful potential I see in it for reducing prejudice against gays, and prejudice against mixed-orientation marriages.

    I've been in a turmoil, losing sleep and strung up like a guitar string, trying to see more clearly what's happening here, and what I want to do about it, if anything. This morning as I lay in bed struggling with this, I thought I might need to back away from it for a while, to get a better perspective on it. This will be the second or third time I've tried to tear myself away from this. I'm not sure what will happen this time. I might respond a few more times to anyone who addresses me, if I can resist the temptation to go beyond that.

    1. Jim, I try to understand your perspective, but it somehow skips my comprehension. And you pointed out several times (or at least I understood it that way) that you are actually making yourself ambiguous not incidentally, but on purpose. You say that you are a member of a church that considers homosexuality a sin. You also made yourself understood that you yourself consider homosexuality a sin when you derive your consideration from your religious views. But then, on the other hand, you say that you support people with same-sex attraction and in homosexual relationships because you feel that by doing that, you are alleviating an incredible abuse that gay population went through in the course of history & still going through in our society.

      And all that is okay with me. I find your standpoint somewhat inconsistent, but I do not doubt your sincerity, nor do I say that my perception of your inconsistency is definitive proof that you are indeed inconsistent. My experience tells me: when I find someone inconsistent, the only reason why I find him or her as such is because I haven't got all necessary data to form a consistent picture. So, in that regard, I find your contribution here interesting, intriguing and worth following.

      From that view point, your statement about Josh as a wolf in sheep's clothing I can grasp only in the content of your continuous perceived and/or apparent inconsistency. What I expect from you is that you, some time in the future, either explain this your statement in a way which would show that you actually meant something else, or that your statement is a prelude for saying that Josh is actually not a wolf in sheep's clothing. And for me, that is okay, I have no problem with it, and I don't say it sarcastically.

      One thing I would like to add. I carefully follow Josh's posts since his Unicorn post, together with all comments that followed. And I did not find any of the comments pointed against you any more sinister or dark than those pointed against anyone else in the discussion, including Josh. So, I must admit that I need more data to understand your feeling about hardest arrows that were thrown at you that are about dark insinuations about your character & motives. If I find any such arrows, my impression is that they were thrown at you more often from those who are against Josh's & Lolly's position on homosexuality & marriage than those who were in favor.

      I also hope that you don't find me in the group of those who were insinuating, ignoring or belittling you. If you feel that I did do these things to you, please, let me know what where when, and I'll be willing to explain myself.

    2. FG, no I haven't seen you insinuating, ignoring or belittling what I've said. I've seen nothing from you but friendliness, and I've enjoyed conversing with you very much. The discussions I was talking about were in another time and place. The only arrows I've felt here were two insinuations that "maybe you don't belong here," and those are relatively easy ones for me. Not to say it doesn't sting at all. I don't have a heart of stone.

      I'm not trying to be ambiguous. I regret very much that it's so hard for people to understand me. What I said was that I'm not trying to be consistent. As I see it, insisting on consistency is one of the biggest obstacles to learning and progress. I embrace paradoxes.

      I don't consider same-sex sexual intimacy a sin, categorically. What I said was that in some people's terminology, my view would make same-sex sexual intimacy a sin. Also, it would be misleading to say categorically that I support people with same-sex attraction and in homosexual relationships. I might support some, and not others, if I knew everything about them, which I never will. I don't have any one-size-fits-all view of the morality of same-sex sexual intimacy.

      It may or may not be possible for you to understand my views about gay issues. The best I way I can see now to describe them is this:
      – I value same-sex love.
      – I value people trusting their scriptures.
      – I don't measure the morality or healthfulness of a sexual relationship by the genders and orientations of the partners.
      – In my mind, God's prescriptions for marriage and chastity are irrelevant to gay issues.
      – The only discussions about gays that interest me are about how to reduce prejudice, cruelty and violence against them, and help counteract their effects.

      I don't want to itemize my reasons for seeing Josh now as a wolf in sheep's clothing. If and when I do that, it will be after I back away for a while, and get a better perspective on it. I might decide to just ignore it. What I mean by it is that now I see his coming out, combined with his blog, his counseling service and his publicity campaign, as a trojan horse for prejudice against gays, taking the subterfuge to a new level. It's an open question for me whether that's intentional or not. I haven't seen any evidence that it is, and I've seen some signs that it isn't.

    3. Jim, I have known Josh for a few years now, and he is genuine. Not that I expect you to believe me when you don't believe him.

      You did itemize your reasons with that Evergreen thing you posted before didn't you?

      His coming out, combined with his blog…I can't imagine what you mean by that. Because he has a humor blog, and he used it to come out? Or what?

      His publicity campaign? You realize Nightline and the others contacted him, not vice versa, correct? You will probably say he did that intentionally, but think about that for a moment. Do you have a blog? Do you know how difficult it is to build "a following"? Josh is not the first person to be gay, Mormon and married…there have been others who came out publically. There's what's his name that was in LDS Living…ah, Tyler Mansfield. I think that is his name. My point is, I don't believe Josh knew this would happen as you imply.

      …a trojan horse for prejudice against gays??? Did I understand you correctly? Are you implying that Josh is TRYING to hurt gays? If so, unbelievable. I'm going to limit myself to "unbelievable" because if I say anything else it might be construed as an attack on you, and that wouldn't help. Just "unbelievable"…

      Again, I suppose it won't make any difference to you, but to others who maybe reading this…Josh and Lolly are exactly what they present themselves to be. No hidden agendas.

    4. Jim, frankly, I believe that the kind of undecidedness that you are showing is dangerous. Not for me or anybody else, but for yourself. (Well, you may decide not to care about what I think, and that's fair enough. Still…)

      By hanging on undecidedness, you can easily miss some very precious pieces of wisdom available around. I have to tell you that I have a different approach which may or may not work for others, but I think it is worth taking into consideration.

      I embrace something completely and unreservedly until proven wrong. Then I mourn, repent and look for something else to embrace completely and unreservedly. I believe Josh & Lolly deserve our embrace, completely & unreservedly.

    5. Leslie,

      I had a very warm feeling, reading your post to me.

      I wanted to say it was precious to me, but I don't know how to explain what I mean and why.

      I'm sorry for the starkness of my posts. The way I post in Internet discussions most of the time poorly represents what I'm feeling when I'm writing. I'm always racing, always in a hurry to get where I'm going, and I keep forgetting to take the time to try to show my feelings.

      Pause, with my fingers tapping on the keys.

      I remember reading that Josh was blocked one day, thinking about what to post, and Lolly said it was because he was in the closet, and he agreed, so they decided to come out. They started telling their friends, then decided a better way would be to come out in his blog, and they composed the post together. I'm not questioning any of that. I'm not imagining that he knew this would happen.

      What I mean by "publicity campaign," is welcoming the publicity with open arms, and expanding on it, with a Facebook page for example. I see him putting a high priority on publicizing his story and his blog, and pouring himself into it with all his heart.

      (a pause and a sigh after forgetting to breath while typing)

      I don't imagine that Josh is trying to hurt gays, not at all. My very worst suspicions do not include him trying to hurt gays.

      (a pause and a sigh after forgetting to breath while typing again)

      Oh, I see, because I suggested that planting trojan horse might be intentional.

      As I said, I haven't seen any evidence of that, except, now that I think of it, that the way his story is being presented and promoted, it might be exactly what the exgay movement needs, to revive its fortunes. Even if that were part of his purpose, I wouldn't imagine that he's doing it with the intention of hurting gays.

    6. FG, it surprises me for you think that I might not care what you think. Then again, considering my poor communication skills, it shouldn't surprise me.

      I do care what you think.

    7. Don't worry, Jim, my statement about you not caring what I think was more a generic disclaimer than a statement of my expectations in our discussion.

      I like to acknowledge that people should find themselves free of the influence of my assumptions.

    8. Thanks Jim. I don't think Josh would "kill a fly" as they say. The exgay movement is going to do whatever they do regardless og Josh. It's like me and PETA. I am mostly vegetarian, but PETA is over the top. If I were anyone of consequence,people might connect us. But trust me there is no connection. I completely disagee with their methods. Josh does not believe in reparative therapy, some people will connect him with those who do, but they will be wrong.

    9. FG and Leslie, it might clear up some possible misunderstandings about what I've been saying, if I give an example of how I can imagine Josh doing what he's doing in good faith and with good intentions.

      I can easily picture him as the best kind of therapist I can imagine. I can imagine him giving clients exactly the help they need, to work through the issues that are troubling them, with unconditional positive regard, without any preconceived ideas of the outcome, helping them free themselves from any psychological and social oppression that might be driving them, without imposing his own values in the least, directly or indirectly. I can imagine him working with a practicing gay client to help him face the challenges of living in a homophobic society, or with someone deeply troubled by same-sex attractions, without doing the least harm to either one.

      I can easily believe everything that he and Lolly have said about his sexuality, about their life together and its history, and about how and why they decided to come out on his blog. I can picture their publicity campaign as facing and embracing the unexpected and challenging public attention it has brought them, in loving submission to God's will.

      I can imagine that he is promoting his story not as a the best path for all gays, but only to help reduce prejudice against gays, and prejudice against mixed-orientation marriages. That's the very best part of what I've seen happening here.

      I can easily believe everything he says about his reasons for calling himself gay.

      I don't see any compelling reason to doubt any of that.

      Even if all that is true, it takes nothing away from the harm I see him doing, and needlessly so for his purposes as I have understood them.

    10. FG and Leslie, in case you want to know more about the harm I see him, rather than trying to explain it, I'll tell you how I think he can reduce the harm, and do more good: He can stop calling himself gay in his publicity.

      I see his sexuality as an inseparable part of his message, but he can communicate it much more clearly and beneficially by saying that he is turned on by naked men sometimes, but never by naked women. He says that cuts to the heart of the matter better than any other way of saying it, so why not say that from the start, without putting a label on it? It would help avoid a lot of misunderstandings, hostilities, and harmful uses of his story.

      If that doesn't suit his purposes, and he wants to put a label on it, then he can call himself homosexual or same-sex attracted. He says he uses those labels for himself interchangeably with "gay." If so, then he can call himself either of those with the same honesty and integrity as he can by calling himself gay. Most other people don't use those terms interchangeably as labels for their own sexuality. Calling himself gay in his publicity will encourage and facilitate using his story against gays, and needlessly so, if the terms are interchangeable for him.

    11. To summarize what I see now as my issue with what I see Josh doing: Even with the best of intentions, Josh calling himself gay, in publicizing his story, his blog and his counseling service, encourages and facilitates using his story against gays, and needlessly so for any of his purposes that I can see.

  23. I can only speak for myself here when I say that Josh's story has helped me to see things in a different light. I am LDS and gay. I lived most of my life struggling to reconcile this. I am not married and 35 but feel more at peace with this. For me, Josh's story helped to be ok with who I am, gay and all. I don't have to reject my religion to be gay. I knew this on some level before but this was a big reminder at an important time in my life.

  24. Josh, I am sick and tired of you and your Bull sh*t story. You are a liar or you are confused, but you cannot be openly gay and Mormon. If you show me an actively gay Bishop or a lesbian Relief Society President it would lend credibility, but you can't. I grew up as an active member of the LDS church and I have a lot of experience with disciplinary church court and how gay people are treated in the ranks of the LDS church. I have seen the anti-gay bigotry for myself and have watched others go through the humiliating church disciplinary actions that follow a "confession" of being gay. The LDS church is not tolerant a gay man or woman for that matter, but they love people who pretend to be what the LDS church expects every member to act like. Stop aligning yourself with being gay and get over labeling yourself due to your personal fetishes. You are a fool to think you can live in the LDS bubble and flaunt your sexuality. I think the biggest flaw in your silly story is that you actually believe your own BS. So I challenge you; go on a few dates with guys, cuddle with another man and watch Harry Met Sally. Then go and see if your Potemkin village still thinks you are so brave and insightful for your open feelings about men and sexuality. I bet they don’t, and neither do I.

    1. Kriss, Although I strongly disagree with everything you said….I'm LDS and have known many gay men in the church through the years, some close friends.

      All that aside, I am sorry you are so angry. You must have a lot of pain behind that anger. I get it because I harbor a lot of pain and anger myself (not because of homosexuality….there are other things in life that cause great pain.)

      I hope my post does not further anger you. I am sincere, but since you don't know me I understand if you doubt that. Best to you.

    2. Kriss,

      I too disagree with everything you said. I have been through a disciplinary court and it was nothing like you portray at all. I was not humiliated nor any bad feelings. I think your embellishing ALOT… have never seen the intolerance of gays in the church ( and I've lived all over the country and been to many different wards). Now like any sin, if you do commit it you can get disfellowshipped or exd but it's with all sexual sin.. Not just gay sins.. You are bitter and it's sad

    3. Well then you should both show me at least one example of an openly actively gay Bishop and his husband/boyfriend or a lesbian Relief Society President and her wife/girlfriend. Show me.. πŸ™‚
      Do it. Please, prove me wrong. But you can't. A man who has sex with other men or a woman who has sex with other woman are not worthy to serve in a church position. The gay/lesbian sex makes them unworthy is the same thing that defines their sexuality. You guys can make excuses but neither of you will be able to tell me the name of any Ward that is led by openly active homosexuals with their same sex life partners.

    4. Kriss, did you even bother to read Anon and I's posts? If you just want to talk to yourself go ahead.

      Anon, thanks for your post. Lurkers will read it and appreciate it.

    5. Leslie and Anon could you please just answer the question that has been presented and tell us all of an actively gay or lesbian church leader. If God makes humans and some are made gay. Why would God discriminate against one of his creations for acting in the way they he made them. Seems like you guys are caught in another quandary. Are you trying to say that God thinks that gay sex is a sin, but straight sex is OK?

    6. I will answer… Probably not just like there is no actively adulterous leaders serving too. Iactuelly take that back I am sure there are leaders serving in the church that are living a life of sin and not being honest about it ( my mom was one of them who had a double life and was going to church on Sunday in leadership and cheating on my dad). I am sure josh has a leadership role. Josh? he act of homosexuality is a sin not the thoughts ( although thoughts often lead to the act). There are many non practicing gay people in thr church I am sure with leadership responsibilities.

      I know that anyone who is disfellowshipped (like I was) and exd can't be in leadership. And people Living in sin should not be unless they repent. I myself am a leader now only 9 month after my membership was reinstated and I repented.

    7. Of course there are no open and actively gay members in leadership positions. The Church's doctrine is clear. Sex outside of a marriage between a man and a woman is a serious sin–one that will almost undoubtedly preclude you from serving in leadership positions. If you identify as gay but do not act on it, you are free to hold leadership positions. If you act on it, you won't be able to.

      To Anon July 21, 2012 11:58 AM–
      Yes, I believe that God thinks that gay sex is a sin. I also believe that he thinks that heterosexual sex is a sin if it's done outside of marriage. Conversely, I believe He thinks heterosexual sex within a marriage is sacred, important, and appropriate. To me, that is consistent with scripture and consistent with my personal testimony of the Church and its teachings. You are free to disagree. Many people don't believe there is anything sinful about gay sex or any other kind of sex.

      As for your question about why God would discriminate against one of his creations, I think it is part of the challenge and test of this life. In many ways, He discriminates against all of us in this way to some degree or another. Most heterosexual people have desires that they probably should never act on. This includes anyone who has ever been tempted to commit adultery. And this discrimination goes way beyond orientation. Why, for example, does God make people who are disabled (many of whom, because of their disabilities, will probably never be able to have a sexual relationship with someone but nonetheless have the strong natural desire to have one)? Why does God place some of his children in third world countries where they struggle daily to find enough food and water? Why does he place some of his children in abusive families? Why does he allow temptations to be put in our paths that feel so hard to overcome sometimes? Is it because He doesn't love us? No. It is because this life is a test of our faith, our obedience, and our determination to do what we believe is right no matter how hard it might be. For many of us, the rewards will not come until the next life–and that's where faith comes in. I believe that all of our challenges, temptations, and trials will melt away after this life and that God will straighten out all the inequities we encountered as a result of our mortal experience. And so I choose to look at the issue of homosexuality–and every other human struggle–from an eternal perspective.

  25. Yeah, I am going to have to agree with the last comment. If you are living an active gay lifestyle and still consider yourself to be an active Mormon you are fooling yourself or just playing word games to get attention. As a marriage councilor, you lovingly support the ideas of marriage. OK I get that. As a Mormon you glaze over the real and lurid history behind the prophet Josephs Smith's 14,15,16, and 17 year old wives and focus on the feel good stories of the Book of Mormon. I doubt you want to rock the world you live in by really evaluating what you are saying and what is actually believable. Josh, you are full of it. You are just another romantic, in love with romance and you are willing to say just about anything to get attention. Go get some man in your life, but I doubt you are really gay, maybe you have a fetish, maybe you just want attention, but until you are actively living and participating in a gay lifestyle, you are just a silly confused man who loves marriage and is looking for justify your own cognitive dissonance. With that being said, aren't you still in the closet? If you are gay, go be gay, but do not hide behind a wife and a set of ridiculously contrived morals where a man can't have sex with a man, but a prophets can romance 14 year old girls. Just to many blanks spaces in your story Josh. Not believable.

    1. And you are merely using Josh's blog to castigate the LDS church…this has nothing to do with Josh. Give it your best shot, you are not the first to say such things nor will you be the last. And yet the church goes on.

  26. Leslie,
    This is the problem with Mormons. When anyone brings up something like Joseph Smith and his 14 year old bride Helen Mar Kimball, they are labeled as "castigating the LDS church."

    Its not my fault your prophet practiced pedophilia, but when its brought up as a reference to another topic you quickly through out the accusation of "castigating the LDS church."

    I guess you are comfortable with the church being run by deviant men like Joseph Smith and his child wives, but if a man has consensual sexual relations with another man, his worthiness is somehow impugned? So then, why is it perfectly acceptable to have a child bride, but not a same sex lover and still hold office in the church?

    "Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this." – William Law

    "A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his[Joseph Smith] and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth." -Oliver Cowdery

    Leslie you do not have to believe what is quoted here, but your oblivion does not dismiss the historical accuracy behind the statements. My point was not to elaborate on Joseph Smith's pedophilia in this conversation, but to compare one sex act to another and ask why the pedophilia is acceptable to LDS church members and gay sex is not acceptable, when it comes to serving in a church leadership positions.

    Instead of your knee jerk reaction of calling me an "anti" why not just answer the question.

    1. Langston, what a difference does it make to you if a church established by "a deviant man" like Joseph Smith has this or that stance about gay relationship & gay marriage? Why would you care? Isn't the church discredited in your eyes to the degree that it doesn't make a particle of difference what is it's stance about anything?

      I would argue that you have such warm and fuzzy feelings about Mormons and you care so much about them that you devoted your whole life in helping them change their crooked paths.

      Now, tell us, Langston, what do you stand for in your life that we can follow?

      Would our support for homosexuality be it? Or would you expect us also to denounce pedophilia that we, members of the church so devoutly believe in?

      Tell us more, Langston. We want to know.

    2. Most members of the Church have heard these accusations of perversion and pedophilia before, and we know that they typically stem from either a lack of understanding and information about Church history or, more often, a smear campaign to discredit Mormons and shock the conscience of investigators. I don't have the time or inclination to fully and fairly respond to a post like Langston's, so for those of you who are unfamiliar with this era of Church history and genuinely curious about such accusations, here's a link to a site that should answer most of your questions:

      (On the right-hand side of the page you can see various topics on the subject of polygamy, Joseph Smith, and Church history.)

      Check out the link, Langston. You might learn something new.

    3. I born into and was raised in the church. In fact my first wife and I spent a lot of time doing temple service in the Arizona temple. I had served in countless church positions ranging from stake callings, youth leadership and elders quorum presidencies. In January of 2000 I was visiting a ward in N. California. The bishop arose and read a letter that requested the members vote for Ca Prop 22. I was appalled that the church pulpit became a political pulpit. This was the beginning of the end for me. From there I started reading about the LDS church and found out many things I could not just give a pass to. You can call me a heretic or an anti or what ever makes you feel better, but you can never call me a disingenuous. There is a huge mistake many LDS make and that is thinking that anyone who speaks about LDS issues must not be as learned as they are, this is foolish and vain. It is reenforced by special warm fuzzy feelings and not corroborated by the testimonies of men like Oliver Cowdery, William Law or the other man who came forward with less than stellar commentary on Joe Smith. Grow up Leslie, no one is always right, and it smacks of childishness to insist otherwise. Before you say, that I think I am never wrong, I was wrong and then I left the church.

    4. Kriss I had the same letter read to me over the pulpit here in Washington. I did not find it offensive at all. In fact all they read from the first presidency was that to be prayerful about the decision when voting and that the chuech doesn't tell you how to vote. A a lot different then what your suggesting. It sounds like you were already starting to head out Bedorw the prop 8 thing. the door by your animosity I hear.

      I am personally sad for you.. Your judgement is clouded and you allowed the world dictate things of the spirit. Sadly you probably took your kids down the same path and someday you will regret it. People always do. My mom did the same thing but in a slightly different way. The world told her it was ok to find someone else because she wasn't happy and she took off on us. She absolutely regrets every minute of her life now, down to leaving the church because of it. Sadly she took down my younger siblings too. There lives are so complicated compared to her kids that still are members and active. All those emotions are flooding her now . Regret is a funny thing. You never think you will regret but everyone always does.

  27. Penn Jillette wrote this and I think its a good standard to go by.

    1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.

    2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let's scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian, Garth Brooks versus Sun Raβ€” but when your house is on fire, I'll be there to help.)

    3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to (G)od is now quite simply respecting yourself.)

    4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you're religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you're a Vegas magician, that'll be the day with the lowest grosses.)

    5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)

    6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that "Thou shalt not kill" only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it's all human life.)

    7. Keep your promises. (If you can't be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don't make that deal.)

    8. Don't steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes β€” you know who you are!)

    9. Don't lie. (You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)

    10. Don't waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it'll make you bugnutty.

    1. Langston, I am pleasantly surprised. In many ways, I also like and respect Penn Jillette. From what I can see, it seems to me that you are a cool guy and that you and I can get along quite well, in spite of the fact that I'm a devout Mormon, and you are whatever you are.

      To set the record straight, rest assured that Mormons actually do not believe in pedophilia.

      Let me also say that some of the things you raised about the guy Smith aren't as spot on and significant as many would like them to be. I love and respect the guy Smith, and I hope you wouldn't hold that against me (too much).

      I admit that some of my fellow Mormons are sometimes bugnutty, but understand that even they are only humans. Penn Jillette was also known to say that (I'm paraphrasing) he often likes bugnutty Christians more than "open minded" liberals, because former will look you straight in the eyes, will not beat around the bush, will tell you that you are dead wrong, and then, they will have a drink with you.

      What applies to bugnutty Christians, rest assured that it also applies to Mormons, bugnutty or not.

      Have a nice day.

    2. FG Mormon, your empathy is refreshing.
      Like any other human I have dealt with pain in my life, the end of a marriage, the death of a daughter, the death of a grandchild. However, never have I felt so miserable as I did when I realized the LDS church I loved, was nothing more than contrived stories and that everything from which I built my entire life upon was provably based on one form of lie or another. It was hugely personal.
      Many LDS do not look past the LDS-Bubble. It is frightening, but we have to make decisions and I just can't see how anyone can dismiss Joe's actions from the 1840's when people like Warren Jeffs are prosecuted for basically the same thing. When I was LDS I admit I did not care too much, because my entire social stratification depended on me not acknowledging that anything was wrong. As I see it, if its wrong now, it was wrong then. Thanks for the kind words re: Penn Jillette, funny guy.

    3. Wow, Langston, that is very difficult. I think it is very close to impossible for many people to be able to do what you did without it destroying them.
      I left fundamentalist Christianity 11 years ago after 13 years. There was a lot that I never bought into but it was still difficult – leaving the community of believers was one of the most difficult things. And getting those beliefs completely out of my head is so hard. In my case they were ingrained when I was 20 but I was a very young 20 so like a child in many ways. i can't imagine having grown up in a religion and then realizing the foundation is made of clay. I still remember my pastor, a really lovely man, saying that the 'protection' of the church would no longer be on me. That was heavy and something I haven't forgotten. But you are right, it is absolutely like a bubble and as such, any and all justifications and rationalizations will be used in order to be able to stay in that bubble. I remember Scripture being twisted almost into a pretzel in order to rationalize what it meant. And we just had the Bible. Y'all have the Bible and the Book of Mormon to rationalize. And the power of being in a community with people who reinforce the beliefs cannot be underestimated. It is all encompassing. I've been hard pressed to find a community similar to what I had in fundamentalist Christianity – genuinely lovely and caring people who loved me and who I loved. Some of the most genuine folks I've ever met. And yet I couldn't keep buying the stories in order to keep the community. And the music still sways me and touches me, but sadly, it was not real. Anyway, I think y ou are quite brave. And i'd love to hear more of your story if ever you feel like sharing it.

    4. I also think that hearing stories of those who have left the LDS and the reasons behind it are, at root, so absolutely terrifying to some people that they automatically assume that the person who has left is angry or damaged in some way or any reason that will put that person in a box so that they don't have to deal with it. I was told often, 'you are just in rebellion.' It's terrifying for some and I need to remember that when I read comments of people lashing out in sarcasm, condescension and rage at you, at me or at anyone who has left LDS or fundamentalist Christianity. There's no point in my debating with them because they will not be able to hear it, so high are the defenses. I'm expecting sarcasm/anger in response to this comment which will sadly, only reinforce my point.

    5. Langston, I'm glad that you find my comment refreshing. There are tons of things that I may wish to write to you at this point, but it isn't time nor place. Suffice to say that I'm a weirdo, a gay convert to Mormonism baptized in my late 20-ties, after being a staunch atheist for a better part of my life and after realizing that homosexual relationship isn't for me. Three years after my baptism, I was married (temple version) to an exceptional woman, and we now have three kids. I'm from a (former communist) country in continental Europe where one could have great difficulties finding any Mormon, let alone a gay Mormon married in temple. I'm also a staunch libertarian, which is considerably less common here than even to be a Mormon.

      I have studied Mormon controversies some of which you mentioned in your post, but I didn't find them detrimental to my faith. You may wonder how, and your wonder would be legitimate, and I may even be willing to share some of my thoughts about the matter, but as I said, this isn't time nor place.

      All the best.

  28. I'm lurking here and decided to click on the link suggested above. I'm going to be honest, it is extremely difficult to get through even a page of it. It was confusing and didn't really clear anything up – for example, was it saying that Joseph Smith endorsed polygamy but not just for the thrill of sex with many women? Okay, so he still endorsed polygamy? Joseph Smith actually said things about Native Americans and Caucasian people having children so as it purify the children but this was not actually limited but he actually did say this? It felt like the site has no problem with some of the abhorrent things Smith did and said but then refutes possible worse things he did. It seemed like it was saying, well, yes, Smith loved polygamy but for good reasons. Or Smith said racist things but he didn't implement some racist plans.
    My feeling reading through that site is similar to when I've read through Scientology sites – Scientologists believe in Xenu and such and so discussion of that isn''t seen as bizarre to them but to a non-Scientologist, it's all rather surreal and disturbing (remember the leaked Tom Cruise video where he uses lots of Scientology expressions. So bizarre). What I'm trying to say is that as a non-Mormon, that site is almost gibberish. I realize the temptation here is to respond sarcastically but I hope not.

    1. I can see how a lot of it can seem confusing, especially if you're not real familiar with the LDS Church and its history. I think it would take days of discussion to fully address every aspect of Church doctrine on polygamy, but I'll try to give a brief summary of my understanding of some of the key points. Keep in mind that I am describing this from the viewpoint of a member of the Church; I recognize that you may not believe in divine revelation and probably do not believe that Mormon prophets receive it from God.

      Yes, Joseph Smith, as commanded by God, instituted polygamy shortly after the church was organized. And yes, Joseph Smith, as well as many of the other early church leaders, had multiple wives. Only a small percentage of members participated in the practice, and only when specifically called to do so by their leaders. Many of these relationships were dynastic, non-sexual marriages. Some were not. Most of the men who were asked to participate saw polygamy as a burden and did so grudgingly. But they did it because God commanded it and would have continued doing it despite threats to their lives, their families, and their freedom for as long they were asked to. There was great relief among most members when Wilford Woodruff, the fourth prophet of the church, finally received revelation to end the practice in 1890.

      There has been a lot of speculation about why the Lord would ask this of early church members. (And of course, opponents of the church claim that it was not a commandment from the Lord but rather a perversion put in place by Joseph Smith and others to fulfill their own lustful desires and ulterior motives. There is much evidence suggesting that was not the case, but obviously there is no way for me to definitively prove anything to you either way.) One of the most common justifications that people have offered to explain why the practice was instituted is that there was a shortage of temple-worthy, male members of the church at the time and polygamy was necessary to ensure that every worthy woman could receive the blessings of a temple marriage. Others have suggested that polygamy was needed to grow the membership of the church in those early days. Some even theorize that it was just a way for the Lord to test the faith of some of these early members–to put them through the refiner's fire, so to speak–in order to build a strong foundation of church members who would keep the commandments no matter what. All of this is speculation. The bottom line is that we believe the Lord commanded it for a season for reasons we may never know.

      I think it's worth pointing out that, as the Bible shows, the Lord has often commanded prophets to institute polygamy in past ages. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon all had multiple wives.

      I hope that helps, but, like I said, this is a complicated discussion that could probably fill volumes.

  29. I wonder how much damage has been done to young people who are struggling with their sexuality by people who keep telling them, over and over again, that their sexual desires define who they are, and that there is no way to live a good life without indulging in said desires? How many young people (and maybe not just young people) give into despair because of these despairing messages and end their lives because they have no hope? And what a dreadful, diabolical idea that our sexual urges are more fundamental to who we "really" are than our faith!

    I am not LDS (I am Protestant) but I do struggle with SSA. I want young people reading this to know that if this is your struggle, to, you do not necessarily have to live that way. Maybe in the end you will, but following God can better fill your needs. That has been my experience. God loves you and has something much better in store for you than pursuing pleasures of the flesh. The flesh is temporary and passes away … but the Word of God and the will of God stand forever.

    1. I also should mention that I accepted being single in my early 30s, finding happiness and fulfillment that way. Just a few years later, God led me to the woman who became my wife (I am a man, btw), and we have been incredibly blessed by three children as a *result* of our union!!! A same sex union cannot have that result. It is counterfeit and not inherently life-giving. So before anyone decides to pursue happiness in that way, I must share my conviction that such is not the way of happiness, which can only be found in following the will of God, and experiencing the process of sanctification.

    2. Wow, great post. I can't think of too many things more damaging to a kid than telling him he lacks the ability to control his sexual urges, that he has no choice but to define himself by his sexuality. I wonder how many people's lives have been ruined because of messages like that.

    3. It would be interesting to do a study on how many young adults are killing themselves because they are told that who they are is just fine. I welcome stats on that.
      Being gay is not just about sexual urges, as much as some may want to reduce it to that. It is the same as being straight except a gay person wants a partner of the same gender. A partner in all the ways a straight person wants a partner – sexually, emotionally, etc. It is as well rounded as what a straight person has in a marriage. again, it is not just about sexual urges. I believe that there is an insistence that being gay is just about sexual urges because by reducing it, it is easy to dismiss.
      You can be gay, be in a gay relationship and still be in control of your sexual urges. Where is the evidence that gay relationhips are just about sex?
      So to sum up and be super clear
      1. gay relationships are not just about sexual urges. They are as complete as straight relationships. I'd welcome evidence that says being gay is just about sex for all gay people.

      2. If you reduce being gay to being just about sex, then it is easier to condemn.

      3. I would welcome stats on the number of LGBTQ young people who have committed suicide or been psychologically damaged when told that their desire to be in a fulfilling gay relationship (not just sex) is okay.

      I always have to add that I hope people can respond non-sarcastically because it seems difficult for people on here to not lash out at viewpoints different from theirs. I also welcome facts and stats that back up what you are saying.

  30. AnonymousJuly 21, 2012 11:27 PM, Beautifully said! Thank you for shaing that.

    "Maybe in the end you will, but following God can better fill your needs."

    You do realize that there are a lot of GLBTQ people who believe in and love G-d, yes? And who believe that G-d did not make a mistake with their sexual orientation nor belive it to be a sin? My religion ordains GLBTQ people and blesses their marriages.

    I have yet to met a GLBTQ activist who believes that a person must engage in sexual relations to be a complete person. Instead, I have met many people, Josh Weed included, who believe that sexual orientation is not changable and believe that self-acceptance is what is needed to be a complete person.

    1. Thanks, Fresh Hell. I note that no one has taken me up on providing stats of how young LGBTQ people are killing themselves because they are being told that who they are is just fine. Nor have they responded to the reality that being gay is not just about sex perhaps because they realize that they would then have to stop reduce being gay to just being about sex.

    2. "I note that no one has taken me up on providing stats of how young LGBTQ people are killing themselves because they are being told that who they are is just fine."

      You're going to have a long wait on that one.

      It's just part and parcel of the vicious sterotypes that people use as crutches instead of actually getting to know GBLTQ people. In their fevered imaginations, being GBLTQ simply means who you have sex with, which is both demeaning and completely wrong.

      Ironically, these people are spouting their misinformation under the delusion that Josh agrees with them. If they cannot be bothered to read the blog they are posting on, how much reading/learning are they doing in the rest of their lives? Not much, if I had to guess.

  31. AnonymousJuly 21, 2012 6:15 PM, Infertile people also cannot have children. Is your view that their marriages are also "counterfeit and not inherently life-giving."?

    I'm old enough to know that making a baby does not make someone a parent; that's just passing on DNA. Parenting a child in a loving way is what makes a parent and being gay or infertile does not disqualify someone from being a parent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.