The Baron of Deseret: Millennial Star

M*--April

Ethics and Exceptions

Professional Isolationism

April 19, 2007 in Millennial Star | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More M* Updates--March...

As in all things, it depends on your point of view...

(If you need a 'disclaimer', see comment #16...)

"From Whence Do These Seeds Come..."

March 27, 2007 in Millennial Star | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Weddings and Money

Catch up on M* links:

Money: The Root of all...Good?

Scenes from a Wedding...

August 10, 2006 in Millennial Star | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Shopping on the Sabbath...

...Revisited

July 26, 2006 in Millennial Star | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Modern Fidelity...Resurrected

[Originally posted June 12 at M*
...then lost during the Great Deletion
...then found again through Google Cache
...then lost again through data corruption on my computer
...then found again...sort of...because I still had a Word file with the rough draft in it
So...here it is, reposted just for completeness. Unfortunately all the original comments have been lost...]

Let me introduce you to “Bob” and “Diane”—two living, breathing people who are real in every way, except for the fact that I just made them up.

Bob and Diane have known each other since their freshman year at college. They always have fun together, have lots to talk about, and are caring and supportive of each other’s goals and dreams. Bob recognizes that Diane is a very good person—she has a positive attitude, she’s dependable, kind to others, and active in her faith and church service. Bob not only likes Diane, but respects and admires her as well. When Bob asks Diane to marry him one day, it is because he feels all of her positive attributes together make her a suitable marriage partner, and an excellent mother to any kids they might have together.

One problem: Diane is—and we’ll try to phrase this as tactfully as possible—NOT a very good looking woman. Whether it’s being abnormally obese, handicapped, physically deformed, or just random ugliness (take your pick…perhaps all of the above) Diane unfortunately ranks very low in terms of ‘attractiveness’ compared to many other people Bob has met. Diane is at peace with how she looks and doesn’t let it hurt her self-esteem. For his part, Bob doesn’t care, either--he has looked beyond the outward appearance to Diane’s “inner beauty” and sees a person worthy of his love and respect…and is willing to commit to her for life and beyond.

Consciously, Bob has a good attitude. He loves Diane and is committed to their relationship. However, we should discuss factors that may not be within Bob’s direct control. Namely, part of the ‘connection’ between men and women depends on internal chemical processes which, in the case of Diane, are not nearly as strong within Bob’s body due to her ugliness. This is not an absolute barrier to their future physical intimacy, since obviously he would not be the first guy to have a less than physically perfect wife and yet still have a family, but Diane’s lack of ‘attractiveness’ may make this more problematic.

Of a greater issue is the fact that there are many people other than his wife who are more ‘attractive’ (in this same physiological way) to Bob—some exceedingly so. He sees them every day and—were he to dwell on them—present potential threats to the sanctity of his marriage with Diane, whom he has pledged to be faithful.

Question: to what extent should Bob be expected to remain ‘faithful’ to Diane, given her extreme unattractiveness?

Her physical appearance has no bearing on Bob’s fidelity. He has made a covenant to be faithful to her regardless of circumstances. Faithfulness is expected whether Diane is ugly, lives thousands of miles away, in jail, or in a coma. Meeting someone more attractive than Diane—even exceedingly so--changes nothing.
Faithfulness is ideal, certainly, but perhaps not practical in this circumstance. Bob will almost certainly meet someone someday whom he finds more attractive than Diane, and men being who they are, will be tempted to take advantage of it. Diane should realize that under the circumstances, ‘fidelity’ is too idealistic an expectation for Bob given her unattractiveness, and deal with the reality that Bob’s possible (even likely) future unfaithfulness is due directly to her physical condition and she should accept it as an unavoidable part of her marriage.
Bob has no responsibility at all to be ‘faithful’. No one should be confined to a monogamous relationship with someone whom they find physically unattractive. Bob may stick with Diane for a little while to be nice, but when he meets someone else he finds more attractive than Diane (which is inevitable), he not only can but should take advantage of it and ‘trade up’. If he desires to keep up the communal living arrangement with Diane, anyway, and just have his sexual liaisons on the side, Diane has no complaint against him. Expecting ‘fidelity’ from someone with an ugly spouse is unfair to Bob and his physical needs, and he should be encouraged to find satisfaction wherever he can without opposition from Diane.

Now, let’s switch it around a little bit. Reread the above situation, only this time with Diane now being above average in looks…and Bob being gay.

Answer the same question: to what extent should Bob be expected to remain faithful to Diane, given her extreme ‘unattractiveness’ (from Bob’s perspective)? Is the answer the same or different than the original?

As has been discussed amongst the blogosphere recently, the LDS Church does not now encourage men with same-sex attraction (SSA) to marry women. The reason is obvious: those marriages have a high failure rate.

Ah…but why are they failing? Is it because (a) the wife tends to find out about her husband’s SSA and immediately divorce him? Or (b) because the husband tends to be unfaithful to his wife with male partners?

While I’m sure we can find examples of (a), it seems obvious (b) is the more likely consequence that has directly led to the change in policy. If so, whose fault is the failure of the relationship, then?

Much of the discussion of why gay marriage is necessary—even from righteous Latter-Day Saints with SSA who respect the law of chastity—is that gays are ‘unsuitable’ for opposite sex marriage. The question is: why? What makes someone with SSA ‘unsuitable’ for opposite sex marriage? And why could you not use exactly the same logic and say men are ‘unsuitable’ for marriage to an ugly woman?

I know of no bishop who would counsel with a young man and say: “Be on the lookout for a suitable eternal companion…but make sure she’s good looking. Otherwise, it’s a bad match and it’s just going to end in tears…”

Or, counsel with a homely young woman and say, “It’s probably better that no guy has wanted to marry you yet. He’d only cheat on you, anyway, with someone better looking…”

Thus, the basic question is: is fidelity conditional? Is it ‘okay’ to be unfaithful if you’re not physically attracted to your current spouse any more? If so, why are the ‘rules’ different for gays than for men with ugly wives? If low levels of sexual attraction to one’s spouse is considered vital and necessary to the success of the marriage in one case, why is it not in the other?

And, of course, we should consider that a person’s attractiveness can change over time. Considering that marriages are designed to last decades, not months, it’s not likely that the level of ‘attractiveness’ (from a purely physical standpoint) can remain constant even with one’s best efforts.

Virtually no one would excuse a man who said to his wife one day: “Honey, when you were 22, you were gorgeous. But that was 20 years ago. I’m afraid you’re just not as good looking, or skinny as you once were. That’s why I have to look elsewhere—I mean, you certainly can’t expect me to continue to be faithful to someone who’s just not attractive anymore, right? See ya…”

Why would a man who leaves his wife for a man be more excusable than one who leaves his wife for another woman? You’re either faithful, or you’re not…

One of the most prevalent ‘attacks’ on the family today isn’t the prospect of legalized gay marriage: it’s the underlying cynicism behind the purpose of marriage—including from those that argue that gay marriage is ‘necessary’. It is that cynicism that says that marriage is entirely about personal sexual gratification, and serves no other purpose. Any marriage that does not fulfill any such ideals of personal sexual gratification is therefore worthless and should be discarded from consideration. It is that cynicism that defines ‘faithfulness’ to any covenant as “honor it with your whole heart and soul…until you don’t feel like it anymore, then stop.”

From a gospel standpoint, marriage is not limited to—or defined by—sex. Marriage is a covenant relationship where two people love, respect, and support each other regardless of how their (still valuable) sex life changes through the years (or, in fact, becomes non-existent). Ask a gay marriage supporter why they want to get married to a same-sex spouse and sex will rarely be mentioned directly—usually you’ll hear more or less the same response about wanting a relationship based on love, respect and support.

This leads to a basic and fundamental question: Which of these three attributes is a gay man incapable of providing to a woman, and her to him?

Stated even more simply: why is gay marriage necessary? What prevents any person (with same-sex attraction or not) from obtaining all the blessings that Heavenly Father has provided through marriage to an opposite-sex partner? What’s the difference between their situation and one who marries someone who is (or later becomes) quite unattractive. How is ‘fidelity’ dependant on the attractive quality of your spouse?

These are key questions that strike at the heart of the gay marriage issue. The entire basis for arguing the necessity of gay marriage is dependant on the fact that gays are somehow excluded from all the blessings of marriage under current law. In order to support secular (or Church) acknowledgment of same-sex relationships, this case has to be made…and I don’t think it can be done. What blessing of marriage is someone with SSA completely blocked from obtaining?

I don’t believe not officially encouraging men with SSA to marry women is a tacit admission by the Church that same-sex marriage might be necessary. Rather, it is a protective step to keep more of the precious sisters of the Church from getting their hearts broken by men who live by Fidelity Definition #3 above. (It may, in fact, be an argument against gay marriage, since why would we expect this group to be capable of being unconditionally faithful to a same-sex spouse, when they weren’t to an opposite sex one? Men become less attractive over time as well, of course…)

If I were married to an ugly woman (this is hypothetical…) my covenant of faithfulness is not minimized by her appearance. The expectation of fidelity for my marriage covenants does not dematerialize if she gets badly scarred, burned or maimed in an accident and becomes horrific to look at. Likewise, "being attracted to men" would (or should) not be an excuse either. Marriage and fidelity is not about sex, or attractiveness and (beyond the same-sex marriage issue) the redefinition of fidelity based purely on sexual matters is a key factor in the disintegration of many families today...

June 21, 2006 in Millennial Star | Permalink | Comments (13) | TrackBack