Talk:Mixed-orientation marriage

Support groups

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

Discussion

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

Does one partner have to be straight?

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

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

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

Removed ex-gay category

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

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

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

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

borkeback reference deleted

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

List of issues justifying deletion

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

Clear heterosexist bias:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Style/language issues and further POV framing:

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

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

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

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

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

Heterosexism + sexism:

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

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

And his [heterosexual] wife Linda Lee Thomas

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

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

Faulty logic:

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

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

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

False dichotomy/distinction:

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

Original research and BLP concerns

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

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

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

Invisible bisexuals

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

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

Heterosexual/Homosexual vs. Straight/Queer

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

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

This article...

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

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

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