{"id":4007,"date":"2020-08-30T13:30:37","date_gmt":"2020-08-30T20:30:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/?p=4007"},"modified":"2020-08-30T14:56:25","modified_gmt":"2020-08-30T21:56:25","slug":"what-david-a-bednar-got-wrong-about-eternal-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ourthoughts.ca\/2020\/08\/30\/what-david-a-bednar-got-wrong-about-eternal-marriage\/","title":{"rendered":"What David A. Bednar got wrong about eternal marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
In the September 2020 issue of The Ensign<\/em>, there\u2019s an article<\/a> entitled \u201cThe Divine Pattern of Eternal Marriage\u201d, written by Elder David A. Bednar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As soon as I saw the article, I knew it\u2019d focus on defending heteronormative marriage as the norm and then outline why other marriages are abnormal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And I was right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While he certainly highlights the tired clich\u00e9s used by \u201ctraditional marriage\u201c defenders, such as marriage being ordained of God, he uses a new strategy to justify the homophobic opposition of right-wing Mormons to such initiatives as marriage equality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bednar positions heteronormative marriage as innately self-sacrificing, that those within such marriages \u201clos[e] [their] life in service to family or in self-sacrifice for spouse and children.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast, he frames the \u201cmodern secular concept of marriage\u201d as one that is a \u201ca purely private, contractual model\u201d, one that is \u201ceasily entered and easily broken, with a focus on the needs of individuals\u201d and \u201cis based on extreme conceptions of personal autonomy and individual rights that elevate one\u2019s own will over God\u2019s will, that opt for personal choice over personal responsibility, and that prioritize the desires of individuals over the needs of spouses and children.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He then uses this to lead the reader to this conclusion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given this trend, many in our culture could not long resist the call to redefine marriage from the union of man and woman to the union of any two people, regardless of gender. After all, if marriage is little more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights\u2014rather than a sacred and enduring union between man and woman centered on self-sacrifice and raising a family\u2014then it becomes very hard to deny marriage\u2014any type of marriage\u2014to any couple or group of people that seek it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n You see, to him, gay marriages (or any marriage that isn\u2019t between a straight and cis man and woman) are\u2014to use the wording of one his colleagues<\/a>\u2014counterfeit, because the only reason anyone would enter into them is a selfish one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To Bednar, two gay people advance in their relationship toward marriage not because their love for each other grows but because their desire for personal autonomy and individual rights intensifies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But there\u2019s one major flaw in Bednar\u2019s argument: one of his premises is wrong.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s the crux of his argument<\/p>\n\n\n\n I agree with premise C; however, there is no proof that the other two premises are true. Marriages\u2014straight, gay, or otherwise\u2014are neither inherently selfless nor inherently selfish. Whether a marriage is selfless or selfish depends on the partners in that marriage. Regardless of sexual orientation, if the partners are selfless, they may find peace and joy; if they\u2019re selfish, they may not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I don\u2019t know whether Bednar has ever met people in non-heteronormative marriages, but there are plenty of such marriages in which the partners are focused on sacrificing themselves for their loved ones. In addition, plenty of these marriages involve the raising of children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Certainly, there are plenty of gay marriages where there are no children, but there are plenty of straight marriages with no children. Certainly, there are plenty of gay marriages that \u201clead to divorce as people bounce from one relationship to another\u201d, but there are plenty of straight marriages that experience the same thing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The main problem with Bednar\u2019s argument is that he never establishes that gay marriages are indeed naturally selfish. He never presents evidence for the assumption: he merely gives the assumption as fact. And without providing meaningful justification for this premise, it threatens the stability of his argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s review some examples from his text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Men and women too often pursue relationships and marriage focused on their own needs and desires rather than on building stable marital and family relationships.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This is true, but it\u2019s independent of sexual orientation. People of all gender identities and sexual orientations pursue relationships focused on their own needs and desires. Conversely, however, people of all gender identities and sexual orientations also pursue relationships focused on building stable marital and family relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If marriage is little more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights\u2014rather than a sacred and enduring union between man and woman centered on self-sacrifice and raising a family\u2014then it becomes very hard to deny marriage\u2014any type of marriage\u2014to any couple or group of people that seek it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Well, that\u2019s just my point. Bednar doesn\u2019t provide compelling evidence that gay marriages are nothing more than a vehicle for advancing personal autonomy and individual rights. He also fails to prove that non-heteronormative marriages aren\u2019t enduring unions centred on self-sacrifice and raising a family. Bednar fails to establish the if<\/em> at the beginning of this statement, the if<\/em> that his argument hangs on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The man and the woman contribute differently but equally to a oneness and a unity that can be achieved in no other way. The man completes and perfects the woman and the woman completes and perfects the man as they learn from and mutually strengthen and bless each other.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This is not inherent to just heterosexual couples. Queer couples can easily come into their relationship with complementary qualities, talents, and abilities, creating a more whole relationship. This is not something straight people have a monopoly on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A home with a loving and loyal husband and wife is the supreme setting in which children can be reared in love and righteousness and in which the spiritual and physical needs of children can be met.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Nothing hinders a gay couple from being loving and loyal or rearing children in love and righteousness any more than it would a straight couple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bednar tries to paint a picture for the reader where all the benefits of marriage and parenthood are, for some reason, exclusive to straight couples, but he\u2014like I said\u2014never provides evidence for this assumption. And as someone who knows several queer people in long-term marriages, and even raising children, I can assure you that queer couples can have marriages and raise children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I\u2019m one of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You see, my marriage isn\u2019t really based on my sexual orientation. It\u2019s based on my love for my spouse. Similarly, our family isn\u2019t based on my sexual orientation. It\u2019s based on the love my spouse and I have for our children. I didn\u2019t have children because I\u2019m queer. I had children because my love for my spouse led me to want to create and raise children with her. It never had to do with my oritentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And if\u2014for whatever reason, after over 25 years\u2014we end up no longer married to each other and I find myself in another relationship, that relationship would also be based on love, not selfishness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And on that note, there\u2019s one more thing from Bednar\u2019s article I wanted to address:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This view inevitably leaves in its wake traumatized children who needed the rich and committed soil of selfless and dedicated parents in which to sink their roots, abandoned because a father or mother has determined that he or she just is not being \u201ctrue to himself or herself\u201d by remaining in a marriage that he or she selfishly perceives is no longer serving his or her own interests or orientation. Ironically\u2014and tragically\u2014the freedom and personal autonomy they seek will, in the end, leave them bound by chains of isolation, loneliness, and deep regret.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This paragraph is the most damaging of all the commentary Bednar provides in his article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here, he\u2019s referring to queer people who entered a heteronormative marriage but then later left it. Often, people in these circumstances either deny their queerness and are attempting to be straight (as I did) or they repress their queerness on purpose and think performing as straight can help them overcome the disease labelled \u201csame-sex attraction\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For the longest time, people who were ecclesiastical leaders when Bednar was bishop and stake president would counsel their congregants who approached them with their struggles trying to be queer and Mormon by telling them to perform as straight: date the \u201copposite\u201c sex, go on a mission, marry the \u201copposite\u201d sex, and have children. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They pathologized queerness, and assumed that since it was a disease, it could be cured. And the best cure was heteronomative performance: the straighter they acted, the less queer they\u2019d be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n People who enter a marriage \u201cas a straight person\u201d do so because they\u2019ve been taught\u2014explicitly or implicitly\u2014that queerness is wrong. They\u2019ve been taught that straightness is the ideal and that they must fit this ideal. It\u2019s exaggerated in the church through things like temple marriage, where it\u2019s required for the highest salvation but only those in heteronormative relationships can access it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And all that creates pressure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Queer people who enter straight marriages do so because of pressure: pressure to deny or repress their queerness. That pressure doesn\u2019t diminish over time, and for some people, it actually intensifies, leading to mental and emotional struggle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact that Bednar thinks leaving a marriage you felt forced to enter will end up in \u201cisolation, loneliness, and deep regret\u201d is the epitome of irony. Staying in a relationship with someone you aren\u2019t sexually attracted to will, itself, lead to isolation, loneliness, and regret.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The fact that Bednar thinks that persons who leave such marriages do so out of simply a perception<\/em> (let along a selfish<\/em> one) is a testament to his own homophobic bigotry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You see, the marriage never \u201cserved their orientation\u201d. They didn\u2019t marry because it \u201cserved their orientation\u201d. They married because of pressure of expectations: expectations forced on them by society, family, and church. They don\u2019t leave because the marriage \u201cno longer\u201d serves their orientation. They leave because it never did; they leave because it damages their orientation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Would Bednar ever insist that a straight woman stay married to another woman? Or a straight man stay married to another man? All in an effort to provide children with \u201cthe rich and committed soil of selfless and dedicated parents in which to sink their roots\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the answer is no\u2014that he wouldn\u2019t force straight members to stay in a gay marriage\u2014then he shouldn\u2019t be advocating for gay members to stay in straight marriages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Instead of telling gay members that they should suck it up and live the rest of their lives in mental and emotional pain, he should be using his energy to changing the rhetoric\u2014both explicit and implicit\u2014within the church that convinces queer members in the first place that they even need to be in a straight marriage at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But then again, this is the same person who thinks gay Mormons don\u2019t exist<\/a>. So, I\u2019m not going to hold my breath.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As soon as I saw the article, I knew it\u2019d focus on defending heteronormative marriage as the norm and then outlining why other marriages are abnormal. Continue reading What David A. Bednar got wrong about eternal marriage<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4008,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,115,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-gay","category-lgbtq","category-marriage"],"yoast_head":"\n