posted
Over on reddit.com, there is a group called AMA, for Ask Me Anything. I ran into this and thought hatrack might enjoy it, on account of the storm of controversy surrounding OSC's gay characters that end up in heterosexual marriages, such as Zdorab from Homecoming, and Anton from the Shadow books.
Here is a real-life gay guy that, because of Buddhist beliefs, is in a monogamous marriage with a woman and has had children.
You can register (takes literally 2 seconds) and ask him questions if you want.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What do you find fascinating about it, BB?
It's just a perspective that I've never seen outside of fiction. Of course the guy could be lying about everything, but even if that is so, some of the reactions of the questioners are also of interest. Some of them go as far as to say they know more about how he feels than he does.
Further, I've never actually heard homosexuality stated as wrong within Buddhism, I'm still scratching my head over that one.
I find it interesting that he cheated on his wife early in their marriage (too much self denial?), then found religion, then decided to not act on his impulses. His statement that there are many people like him, and that he thinks having sex with the opposite gender you are attracted to is not very difficult to me is perplexing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually don't see too much problem with enjoying sex with a gender you are not attracted to. Consider it similar to masturbation. I also can definitely see loving someone without being sexually attracted to them (I mean, that's what Harry Potter's all about). It would be a different relationship than most husbands and wives have but not necessarily less fulfilling.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with BlackBlade on this -- it's interesting. What I'm actually more interested in at this point, though, is what his wife thinks of all this. It's a perspective I would find at least as interesting as his.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm maybe not seeing the whole conversation. From what I can see, there is almost nothing from this guy besides skeleton statements.
And I've got to say, several things (the "I'm doing this because I'm a traditional Buddhist - where traditional Buddhism doesn't have anything to say about this and then later he says that he became a Buddhist after marrying his wife being the most obvious) are pretty big red flags that the whole thing is made up.
I think it would be very interesting to get an actual account going into the life of someone in this situation, but even if this is actually genuine, I don't think you're getting that (unless I'm missing information that other people are seeing). This seems a lot more like someone stating that they are doing these things but not giving any view of their actual life.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if it's true, then he can do what he want, and if he isn't doing it due to some deep seated emotional problems, and it isn't making him miserable, than whatever.
Still, for myself, I can't see myself having sex with someone of the same sex. I just find no attraction, and I would not be happy in such a marriage.
I assume if my attraction went the other way, then barring deeply built in religious guilt I would probably not be happy with a girl, if my personality was otherwise the same. (And I see nothing in the homosexuals I know, in general, to suggest that all the other parts of my personality would be any more or less likely to exist if I was gay, but then I am also not an expert in that particular question, and I don't know if anybody is.)
But regardless, that's just me. I also hate fish, but a lot of other people like fish, so I can't say anything at all about their personalities. I'll never understand it is all!
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I think of all the joy I get from being a mother and all the joy I get from sex, I am not sure which one I would pick if I could only have one. I think a gay male could reasonably in this society believe that he could either be a practicing gay or a family man- but not both. I am not saying that I agree with this belief, just that I can see how someone might believe it. And in that case, I can understand choosing family life over sexual life. I also think accepting that you are making the sacrifice and acknowledging it are important. Since he acknowledges who he is and his desires openly and freely, just does not act upon them, it is unfair to say he is living a lie.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
See Scholarette, I know EXACTLY which one I would pick! Maybe that's why I'm not as over-the-top offended by Card's writing on homosexuals. I can easily imagine someone choosing a family over sexual gratification. What I don't understand are mothers or fathers who completely disrupt their children's lives because they suddenly decide they can no repress their homosexual tendencies. I find that sick! Though, for the record, I don't find it any MORE sick than a mother or father who decides to disrupt their children's lives because they decide their so very attracted to the young secretary at the office or the tennis pro at the club! (That being said, I do NOT agree with his stance on SSM. I'm just saying I find his writing semi-plausible.)
Do we have any Buddhist's on here who could explain homosexuality in relationship to that religion?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
But who are you to say that all of them have your mindset? Or, just because you have your own priorities, everyone else must have the same? Or that they all have the same situation? I know more than one person who's been pressured into acting straight by their family and community from a young age, and it's far, far, far harder to overcome such pressure for some people than it is for others.
When you've been told from childhood that what you are is wrong, evil, and disgusting, and that the only, ONLY thing that will allow you to be accepted by your family, not to mention go to heaven, is to not pursue relationships with the sex you actually like, but instead must pursue relationships only with those who you do not like... then who exactly is to blame later in life when they are finally able to break free of their externally enforced unhappiness, again?
Just because you know which one you'd pick does not mean that it's the best for everybody. Or that everybody SHOULD pick, or should WANT to pick what you want.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But then, due to certain recent events, I am unable to be very objective about all of this. I may very well have taken your words as worse than I think so. This is true even if, right now, I cannot but interpret it the way I have.
I have friends who have been hurt too much by this sort of thing, and it is emotionally analogous to the pain of a burn to see this. Perhaps I take it out on you, since you mock the sort of situation that a friend of mine will almost certainly see herself trapped into due to outside forces.
Anyway, my anger shouldn't be directed at you... this is just a very sore subject for me.
I should just avoid it or something for the time being, I'm sorry.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: What I don't understand are mothers or fathers who completely disrupt their children's lives because they suddenly decide they can no repress their homosexual tendencies. I find that sick! Though, for the record, I don't find it any MORE sick than a mother or father who decides to disrupt their children's lives because they decide their so very attracted to the young secretary at the office or the tennis pro at the club!
I don't find it sick so much as sad when a man leaves his family for another man (or a woman for another woman). I see it as a symptom of a society which convinces them to hide who they are, potentially even lie to themselves for years.
Additionally, I find it tragic that a homosexual feels the need to choose between having a family and being with someone they can be attracted to. This is just part of the reason I see a real need for gay marriage to be legalized.
Of course, nature offers some difficulties in the form of bringing children into such a family -- they can't get them in the normal way -- but they should be able to bring children into their families.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I see something very fundamental about the responsibility of being a parent, since such a thing is almost always a choice that you've made (short of being physically raped). Thus, no matter how "trapped" one feels, putting that trapped feeling above doing what's right for your kids is something I feel strongly against.
I am also quite in favor of homosexual's being allowed to adopt children though! I honestly can't understand why so many people are against it, especially when faced with our abhorrent foster care situation in this country - which is nevertheless better than some of the truly disgusting orphanage situations in other countries. I've even gotten chewed out on some adoption forums for saying that I think a two-parent homosexual home is, on average, better than a single parent home. (FYI - I am a single parent.)
So I'm not saying that homosexuals should have to choose between family and attraction, merely that once they've made a choice, they should stick to it until their children are raised.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think abandoning your children and destroying your family to follow sexual desires is utterly selfish, no matter the sexual desires are.
Choosing not to have a family in the first place is one thing, but once the children exist, sacrificing them for your sex life is among the selfish and wicked things adults can do.
ETA: Or, what DDD said.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Abandonment is a strong word. Would you consider every heterosexual couple who gets a divorce for ANY reason to be abandoning their family? I only consider it abandonment if they actually abandon their children. But the vast majority of the divorced couples I know still care for their kids and consider them a top priority, even if they aren't doing it in a dysfunctional marriage which, IMO, can be worse than a broken marriage. This isn't as simple as sexual gratification.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Short of actual abuse... yep pretty much. There's SO much evidence showing that split parents are bad for kid.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's slightly harsh though because you don't know if it's just sexual desires, but something more. I don't know. I don't think it's really healthy to be a gay man who wants men marrying a woman. It can't be good for the woman to have a man who doesn't desire her totally. I know I wouldn't want to be married to a gay fellow who won't do anything about it. I'd tell him, will you go get yourself a nice man? It seems like the only good thing that can come from such a relationship is the kids. It's just not right for a person to not be themselves.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think abandoning your children and destroying your family to follow sexual desires is utterly selfish, no matter the sexual desires are.
Choosing not to have a family in the first place is one thing, but once the children exist, sacrificing them for your sex life is among the selfish and wicked things adults can do.
posted
On a slightly different note...back to the homosexual-specific case: Many of you seem awfully dismissive of "sexual gratification." But I was just remembering something I heard about sex in marriage a while back: If sex is good, it is 10% of a relationship. If it's bad, it's 90%.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw a really good documentary about a family in a situation like this. The man had married a women when he was young, hoping he would just get over his gayness if he dedicated his life to his family. He tried really hard for decades to believe in it. They had several children. I guess he was able somehow to perform sexually. Then he just couldn't live the lie anymore. His wife accepted it and still loved him. At least one of his kids loathed him for it.
As I listened to all of them tell their stories on film, I was struck the most by the story of the poor mom. She knew there weren't fireworks in their love life, as she felt there should be. She was left feeling very ugly, rejected, and unworthy. That to me was the saddest thing about the whole mess. She loved him and was attracted to him but he had to struggle not to shudder or flinch when she touched him. All this was obvious from watching how they interacted in the film.
I've totally forgotten the name of the movie but I'll never forget that idea that it so powerfully conveyed. These people's lives had been ruined by his decision just to marry a women despite the fact that he was homosexual. It seemed like a really good idea at the time, but over time it proved to be a colossal mistake.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a couple like this. The husband thought he was 100% gay (but accepted that he must be at least somewhat bisexual later) but, as a Mormon, wanted to marry in the temple to a woman and have a family because he felt it was the right thing to do. He told her before proposing what his orientation was but told her he loved her and wanted to marry her anyway.
They've had struggles. He eventually lost his faith and then didn't see the point in being married to someone he wasn't attracted to, so they separated, intending to get a divorce. Except after a while, they both realized that they were really good together, and that they still loved each other, despite their differences.
Today she is pregnant with their third child and they seem normal but happy together.
Personally, I think the only reason their relationship seems to be working is that both of them are aware of his orientation but also willing to love and be loved despite it. I think their marriage is one in a million and don't expect many (or even any) other marriages of its kind to work out as well. Still, people who stay married and in love despite huge challenges always inspire me.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I occasionally find myself wondering whether we do ourselves a serious disservice by insisting:
a) that children be raised by their parents; b) that sex be culturally restricted to life partners; c) that life partners be defined by their willingness to raise children together.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, such a cultural definition has certainly had it's uses.
Anyway, I find the idea that divorce = abandonment interesting, as I have first hand evidence that that is a complete falsehood in many cases. Does it happen? Of course, and abandonment is something that is not good, and something I definitely do not respect. But to conflate the two things is an incredibly dangerous, and horrendously erroneous thing.
Heck, my step-dad divorced his children's mom. Had he "abandoned" his children when they lived with their mom, and he spent as much time with them as he could. Is his action wicked?
Had she "abandoned" them when they moved over here with my step-dad? Is her action wicked?
Yeah, divorce is not good for children, but I know darn well that things are better off now than they would have been if my step dad and his first wife had stayed together.
There is no wickedness in this, and to call divorce such in a blanket statement is in completely disagreement with the facts, of at least one case, and I know others as the same.
And as one who knows what it's like to not have a father, I must wonder what precise definition of "abandonment" one is using.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a friend who is gay, and completely okay with being gay. He's also an Orthodox Jew, and wants to get married because he wants a family. Judaism is very family oriented. He wouldn't marry a woman without telling her that he was gay (which may be why he still hasn't managed to find someone to marry).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I occasionally find myself wondering whether we do ourselves a serious disservice by insisting:
a) that children be raised by their parents; b) that sex be culturally restricted to life partners; c) that life partners be defined by their willingness to raise children together.
Do you think you could modify any of those assumptions and significantly improve the situation? To say nothing about weeding out all the kinks.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People who support SSM are not against marriage for children's sake, or marriage for faith. They do not seek to outlaw or deny that option. Its not about denying options, but about allowing them.
However, such marriages can only work when both parties realize the truth, and not try to hide it. I wonder if the Gay Movement will actually increase the number of successful marriages between gay and straight people, by removing the fear, lies, and recriminations that come from hiding ones sexuality.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a lesbian in a long-term marriage to a man, and we have children. People make their own decisions about what they want to do. I don't think I've done anything wrong to anyone. I don't hide my sexuality from my husband, I don't lie, and I stay in a monogamous, faithful relationship.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think abandoning your children and destroying your family to follow sexual desires is utterly selfish, no matter the sexual desires are.
Choosing not to have a family in the first place is one thing, but once the children exist, sacrificing them for your sex life is among the selfish and wicked things adults can do.
quote:Do you think you could modify any of those assumptions and significantly improve the situation?
I don't know. I think the transition period would be awful enough that we'll probably never get to find out.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Buddhism says nothing specific about homosexuality; however, like many religions, Buddhism does have some conservative groups within it that still view homosexuality in a poor light. It would be my guess that this guy grew up in that sort of Buddhist tradition, or if he really did convert when he was married, that his wife did.
Either way, I think he's kind of missed the point. I'm not saying that he's a "bad" Buddhist or anything, just that his view is strongly opposed to mine.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Anyway, I find the idea that divorce = abandonment interesting, as I have first hand evidence that that is a complete falsehood in many cases. Does it happen? Of course, and abandonment is something that is not good, and something I definitely do not respect. But to conflate the two things is an incredibly dangerous, and horrendously erroneous thing.
...
And as one who knows what it's like to not have a father, I must wonder what precise definition of "abandonment" one is using.
I would think in many people's minds, the adults in the family being willing to alter their relationships with each other and the family as a whole by ending the marriage and ceasing to live together constitutes a type of abandonment no matter how it is done. It doesn't literally mean: leaving your children, but rather quitting the current dynamic and, yes, abandoning your attempt at being a family. That can be an improvement for everyone, so perhaps the word is wrong by connotation, but divorce is a type of abandonment, in most cases. Perhaps the degree to which the status quo is preserved is greater or lesser in any given case, but people don't get divorced and then keep things exactly as they already are, so it's not like you can claim otherwise. I'm just trying to point out that people see it that way for more reasons than you may have considered, and just because they see it that way, doesn't mean they don't also acknowledge everything you have also said- they may just talk about it differently.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Closeted: I'm a lesbian in a long-term marriage to a man, and we have children. People make their own decisions about what they want to do. I don't think I've done anything wrong to anyone. I don't hide my sexuality from my husband, I don't lie, and I stay in a monogamous, faithful relationship.
I was thinking of your last posts as I read this thread. I still think about your marriage sometimes, even though I'm never on Hatrack anymore and I have no clue who you are.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think in society today people define themselves too much by lables such as "gay" or "straight."
A quote from one of the LDS church leaders I think hit it right on the head. (Elder Oaks)
"I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical."
If this gentleman is telling the truth, maybe he is defining his existence through his children and his wife. Perhaps he is focused more on their happiness than his own. One may see him as being dishonest or unfaithful with himself. I see him as putting the happiness of his wife and children before his own desires, and think that is noble.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you can find nobility in a person who puts his children above his own happiness. I also think you can find disgust in a society that forced that person into a situation in which he would have to choose between his children and his happiness.
Furthermore, I believe that it is oversimplifying to state that "staying together" equates to "putting the happiness of [spouse] and children before [one's] own desires." There might be a few people out there who could maintain the facade of happiness for their entire adult lives, and maybe a few others whose sexuality lies more in the "non-sexual" (as in, not terribly interested one way or the other) rather than "homosexual" category. But the vast majority of gays stuck in heterosexual marriages find it extremely stressful. And their opposite-sex "spouses" probably do as well - imagine being in a long-term relationship with someone who does not find you remotely desirable. Ultimately, that's not the kind of thing that a couple can bottle up forever. Sooner or later, one or the other person won't be able to handle it anymore (after all, they're only human!), and someone will be hurt - probably everyone. Including the kids.
IMO, the best possible situation is to have a world in which gays don't feel compelled to enter into false heterosexual relationships just to avoid their society's ridicule. Since that isn't possible at the moment, I think it's far better for a couple in such a situation to have a clean break (and shared custody of any children) than to spend decades growing bitter and resentful of one another.
OMegabyte made this same point earlier in the thread, but was mostly ignored: the choice between "familial unity" and "abandonment" is a false one. There are options between the two - and ultimately, these alternative options may be best for the family overall. Better a child be raised by separated but happy parents, than she be subjected to a broken, bitter household.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think in society today people define themselves too much by lables such as "gay" or "straight."
A quote from one of the LDS church leaders I think hit it right on the head. (Elder Oaks)
"I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical."
Elder Oaks is being extremely dismissive here, whether he intends it or not. Perhaps I need more context to be fair, but practically no one elevates the importance of their hair color, or state of residence, to even the median level of importance that adults place on their sexuality. By making the comparison he demonstrates that he thinks identifying as gay is a foolish and frivolous choice.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's healthy to put others needs ahead of your own TOO MUCH. I'm not saying to only think of yourself. You need balance and the like. I'm saying that too much ignoring your needs can really make you sick.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think abandoning your children and destroying your family to follow sexual desires is utterly selfish, no matter the sexual desires are.
Choosing not to have a family in the first place is one thing, but once the children exist, sacrificing them for your sex life is among the selfish and wicked things adults can do.
ETA: Or, what DDD said.
Well, I think that people make mistakes, and with the best of intentions might find themselves in a situation where there are no good options left.
People may reach a point where they simply feel that they have to try to take care of their own needs, especially after a long deprivation, even if it does cause some hurt for others. While it would be accurate to call this "selfish", I think it would usually be wrong to assume that the self being served isn't also subject to the pain that goes with the change. And it may be unfair to condemn them for seeking to balance a great weight of repression with a measure of expression, when most of us aren't so burdened.
Self sacrifice can be noble, but it can also be destructive. I think that you and I disagree on some fundamental things, but I think we probably agree that the purpose of existence is happiness.
I think that sometimes trying to put others' needs ahead of your own unintentionally demonstrates that life isn't about happiness, but about misery. If you can't be happy, what are you teaching your children - what values are you imparting - by soldiering ahead in your misery?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't know many people who put their hair color at that level, there are many people who place other things on relative levels. The Marines are an excellent example, but not the only one. There are people who are athletes, or doctors, or engineers - and that defines them to such a degree that if they lose that ability, they do not know who they are. That is one of the many problems people have identified with IRL child prodigies (not fictional Ender's). The problem with ALL child prodigies is that when they grow up, even IF they maintain all their gifts, they are no longer a "child prodigy" and they feel like they've lost themselves.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you put other people's happiness ahead of your own too much neither you nor anyone else will actually be happy.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I think in society today people define themselves too much by lables such as "gay" or "straight."
A quote from one of the LDS church leaders I think hit it right on the head. (Elder Oaks)
"I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical."
Elder Oaks is being extremely dismissive here, whether he intends it or not. Perhaps I need more context to be fair, but practically no one elevates the importance of their hair color, or state of residence, to even the median level of importance that adults place on their sexuality. By making the comparison he demonstrates that he thinks identifying as gay is a foolish and frivolous choice.
I don't think he is. He merely pointed out that people make their same or opposite sex attraction the defining characteristic of their existence. I know people who have made football, or their home town, or a physical trait the defining characteristic of their existence as well. Elder Oaks didn't pass a value judgment on the practice, at least not in that quote.
To some people sexuality is not that important, to others it is. I don't think it's wise to assume that if somebody isn't allowing their sexuality to strongly inform who they are that they are either out of touch with what is healthy or lying to themselves.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think many people tend to define themselves by how they are different from others. The more attention that difference creates, the more central to their identity it is. I think that religion, race, and sexual identity are all such charged issues that if you are not in the mainstream, they are a lot more likely to become a focus of your life. Would you find it fair to say that the role the LDS faith plays in your life is generally equivalent (there's always some exceptions) to items such as hair color, etc. listed by Oaks?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a couple (more than one actually) who married in a shotgun wedding after she became pregnant to formalize an "honorable" marital relationship. They did this in the "best interests" of the child, under pressure of their religious heritage.
As a couple their relationship was based on nothing EXCEPT sex/sexuality. Sex was all they did together. They had next to nothing else in common.
Since their marriage, their family has been filled with lack of communication, resentment, and bitterness. (Not to say they are totally void of happiness, but in no stretch of the imagination are they a happy, loving, strong family where children can thrive.)
I find it ironic that many believe "abandoning" (whatever that means in our discussion) one's children/family to follow one's true sexual expression is selfish and harmful; yet creating a new family solely as a result of sex is honorable. In my opinion, the creation of such a family is worse for children than a family where a gay parent leaves a feigned heterosexual marriage to pursue a same sex relationship.
So, what role does sexual expression play in families? If happiness is a main purpose of living, I believe intimacy is a basic human need that must be fulfilled as part of happiness. Intimacy is the antithesis of loneliness. Some people may find intimacy without expression of their true sexual orientation. But for many, sexuality is a large component of deep intimacy.
If true intimacy is being sacrificed within a marriage due to one spouse's same sex orientation, I believe this is beyond the line of healthy sacrifice. Such "sacrifice" in a marriage does more harm than good to everyone in the family, spouses and children. There is a balance between putting others' happiness first, and it does not involve ignoring or repressing one's basic human emotional needs.
quote:If you put other people's happiness ahead of your own too much neither you nor anyone else will actually be happy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't actually true. Kids would prefer parents who are happy, but kids are better off with a stable family with an unhappy parent than in a situation where their parent vacates their responsibilities to them in order to pursue their own desires.
Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you put other people's happiness ahead of your own too much neither you nor anyone else will actually be happy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't actually true. Kids would prefer parents who are happy, but kids are better off with a stable family with an unhappy parent than in a situation where their parent vacates their responsibilities to them in order to pursue their own desires.
Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
Indeed. I would say that it isnt putting someone else's happiness above your own, it is rather, being happy with someone else's happiness. This way, EVERYONE wins.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thirded. From a child of divorce who has heard every well-intentioned but inaccurate de facto argument against marriage in the book.
There are problems in marriage, yes. "Strengthening" the institution by dissolving it is not the way to solve them.
Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you put other people's happiness ahead of your own too much neither you nor anyone else will actually be happy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't actually true. Kids would prefer parents who are happy, but kids are better off with a stable family with an unhappy parent than in a situation where their parent vacates their responsibilities to them in order to pursue their own desires.
Short of actual abuse, ripping apart a family is not in the kids' best interest. It is often in the parents', but part of being a parent is not sacrificing your children's happiness for your own gratification.
It is, not surprisingly, more complex than that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
