Gay/lesbian promises homophobic loved one to never enter same-sex relationship. Binding forever?

Another hypothetical. The perspicacious may note that it’s similar in tone to the one about cremation & burial; that is not an accident. I’m interested in exploring the limits of our notions of honor and obligation.

The first hypothetical here is about Sandra. She lives in Memphis (as, frankly, all characters in my hypos should be assumed to be unless I say otherwise) and grew up in a black Pentecostal church that teaches Biblical literalism, no sex outside of marriage, a physical and eternal hell, and so forth. Sandra’s paretns were both very active in their church–her father, Abe, is a pastor, while her mother, Mary, is a Sunday School superintendent.

Sandra grew up very passionate in her love for Jesus, and to this day she believes in many but not all of the church’s teachings. She’s fine with charity, honesty, keeping promises, and so forth; but she doesn’t believe a loving God would send anyone to Hell for eternity. She has also always had a problem with the teachings about sex, because she’s never been attracted to men. When she was 19 and in her second year of college, she became attracted to her dorm roommate, Cordelia. They have a single sexual encounter. The fact that it was an outstandingly wonderful night did nothing to make Sandra feel less guilty.

Wracked with guilt, she withdrew from both family and friends, cauising her parents to be very worried about her. When they came to her to see what was bothering her, she confessed what had happened. Both were horrified, as they are certain that her being a lesbian would send her to the Pit fo fire. But they didn’t respond with verbal or physical violence. Instead they suggested that they all pray together, for Sandra’s forgiveness and healing. When that was over Sandra felt better, and she promised her parents that she would never ever be with a woman again. She moves out of the dorm and ultimately transfers to another college so she won’t be tempted by Cordelia again.

That was in 1999. Sandra’s mother died a year later of cancer; her father a few months after that. Part of Sandra has always suspected it was because he wanted to be with his wife in heaven.

Ten years past. Sandra keeps her vow to her parents. But she never marries because, while she doesn’t hate men, getting penetrated with a penis is the most disgusting thing she can think of. In early 2010, while having coffee at Starbucks, she chances to see Cordelia again. All her feelings of love rush back. Joining her for coffee, Cordelia reports that she married a year after that one wonderful night. The marriage lasted five years, ending when Cordelia had a pregnancy scare; though she did nto turn out to be with child, she decided she could go on with the marriage and risk bringing a child into what was essentially a sham marriage. Cordelia has never forgotten Sandra, she says. She’s been with other women since her divorce, but it was always Sandra she longed for; it has always been Sandra she loved. If Sandra is willing, Cordelia would like to try again.

What should Sandra do?

Of course she should pursue a relationship. But first she should fix her ideas about herself…have a healthier attitude about herself. This is not remotely the same request as “what to do with my final remains”. And the same rules don’t apply in every situation…life and morality are not “one size fits all”.

I couldn’t have said it better.

While voted option 4, option 3 was also a good choice.

What makes it different? An absolute promise was made in either case. No force was exerted to extract it, and Sandra knew* she had done something [del]wrong[/del] against her morals by sleeping with Cordelia in the first place; she was upset and wanted her parents’ help in resisting her, ah, “urges,” as I read the OP.

Of course I agree with your last sentence.

*Pretending, of course, that know and believe are synonyms.

Any promise made to praying parents is by default “under duress” and to be disregarded completely. Go for it, girl!

It was essentially blackmail. Be forgiven and healed, don’t do it again or burn in hell forever. A promise made under those circumstances might as well have been made with a gun to her head. I really feel for gay people who are unable to get past the religious programming.

Why?

Her parents were ignorant bigots; she should cleanse her memory banks and live her own life.

It is possible to disapprove of homosexuality without being an ignorant bigot. You can be well-meaning but mislead. Observe that Sandra, in the 10-year gap in the action, disapproves of homosexuality.

Another factor to consider is the changes in societal attitudes on this particular issue over the last ten years, which have been enormous. While her parents religious beliefs were certainly the major part of their concerns for their daughter, another significant part may well have been concern about her well-being in a hostile society. This concern is far less significant today.

I can’t tell from the OP if Sandra still believes or not that homosexual sex is sinful. If she does (or is confused), she should not pursue the relationship. If she’s come to terms with it in the context of her religious faith, she should go for it.

I disagree, Sandra can be a well-meaning, mislead, self-loathing bigot. There are tons of them out there. My parents are nice people and they love their gay son, but they are still bigots.

If Sandra still thinks homosexuality is wrong, she needs to not be with Cordelia because being in a relationship with somebody who every so often hits you with the “we’re going to HELL” sucker punch is not even remotely fun. It’s psychological abuse. If she’s gotten over that thinking to the point where she can try having a healthy relationship without making Cordelia feel guilty, then she should go for it.

As was said earlier, any promises made to your parents while there are tears and praying involved are under duress. Especially if said promise involves sex. Your parents have no right to dictate what you can do in your bedroom, but when you’re nineteen and scared and brainwashed by hate you might briefly think they do have that right.

They don’t. Ever. Her youth and fear and upbringing made her give them power they had no right to. Now she can take it back.

I would hope that Cordelia is stong enough in her convictions and beliefs that she’d be unaffected by such things. That’s not a given, though.

See Antinor’s answer.

Parental guilt trips are bad enough, but when you add in religious conditioning/brainwashing, it becomes downright evil. Screw 'em. Live your own life on your own terms.

Who said she was brainwashed? Do you consider all religious teaching brainwashing? Why?

I don’t really care if Sandra’s parents made her pinky swear on a stack of Bibles and cross her heart and hope to die while saying 1000 Hail Marys. What she agreed to with her parents wasn’t legally binding. So using words such as duress as a means to try to get out of the “contract” is kind of irrelevant.

I mean, even if we’re in some sort of bizarro universe where a hypothetical promise to swear off pussy were a legal contract…it’s a contract with who? The parents are dead! Who’s going to enforce that?

The question isn’t about the promise. The question whose wishes trump when dealing with one’s own happiness: your own or your parents?
I’m going to say it should be one’s own and that’s how I voted.

ETA: And honestly? Voting “C,” while noble in an end justifies the means sort of way, just allows for a stupid simple loophole rather than the much harder soul searching and reflection. “Oh, I was under emotional distress. My parents can’t hold me accountable for my actions.” Feh.

Pentecostal women don’t say Hail Marys. They wear really big hats.

I vote that Sandra, assuming the religous programming from youth has ben undone, should be with the person she loves, who is clearly Cordelia.

Not all. Just that done since childhood. An adult is free to make any silly decision they want. Children do what their parents tell them to do. That includes undergoing religious indoctrination. Remember the Jesuit maxim: “Give me the child until he is seven and I care not who has him thereafter.”

I think you might want to say beginning in childhood. Removes the ambiguity. But that’s just my inner editor speaking.

:: shrugging ::

I was raised in a Pentecostal church, with a good five to six hours spent in church every Sunday. Realized it was crap at 12.

Contrariwise, I know several persons who have converted to fairly stringent religious groups as adults.