Winding it Up
So - four posts in four days! I'm back, baby! Nothing like all gay marriage all the time to bring a moribund blog back to life.
Andy and "longwinded passionate woman" have both responded effectively to Abbot of Arbroath's most recent comment, but I wanted to weigh in, too. So here goes:
Abbot begins:
I wasn't trying to mock you. (Or should I say, I wasn't SOLELY trying to mock you.) Both "redactionist" and "reeducationist" would have probably fit, and I'm still not sure which one you meant.
And why are Latter-day Saints uniquely incapable of independent thought?
Where do I announce that I'm speaking on behalf of the church? Where do I refer to church doctrine to justify my positions? What I've written may also be contrary to Sharia law, too - is that a problem?
Andy and "longwinded passionate woman" have both responded effectively to Abbot of Arbroath's most recent comment, but I wanted to weigh in, too. So here goes:
Abbot begins:
thansk for my typos riminder!!
I wasn't trying to mock you. (Or should I say, I wasn't SOLELY trying to mock you.) Both "redactionist" and "reeducationist" would have probably fit, and I'm still not sure which one you meant.
My problem with your opinions on same sex marriage is that you seem to think that you can separate your ideas on marriage from your religion and its cultural input.Surely you recognize that your point is inherently fallacious. You're shifting the focus to the messenger in order to ignore the message. If you were to prove Albert Einstein worshiped Harvey the Invisible Rabbit, would that invalidate the Theory of Relativity?
Everyone's worldview is largely created for them and handed down and none more so than LDS.I don't want to be rude or dismissive, but this strikes me as a deeply stupid thing to say. Everyone's worldview is created for them and then handed down? Then who created your worldview for you? You were raised as a Latter-day Saint, but now you view the world in starkly different terms. So who handed down the new worldview to replace the old one?
And why are Latter-day Saints uniquely incapable of independent thought?
Contrary to popular opinion I am a fan of the LDS church- I made a choice to not be a member - what I am not a fan of is political stances which are contradictory to established and accepted doctrine.So, to clarify, your problem with what I've written on same-sex marriage is that it contradicts LDS doctrine? Are you trying to defend the integrity of the church, then? That's extraordinarily disingenuous.
Where do I announce that I'm speaking on behalf of the church? Where do I refer to church doctrine to justify my positions? What I've written may also be contrary to Sharia law, too - is that a problem?
Perhaps if discrediting the church is the goal, which, in my mind, has no bearing on the topic at hand. You could prove the LDS Church is a front for the KKK and it still wouldn't invalidate the substance of my arguments over the past few days.
As for placing current events within a framework based on past events and patterns is not an attack but pretty logical.
Addressing success or lack of success of LDS growth on the social stances and backwardness of opinions is NOT a leap from your posts but very much linked.Linked to what? I'm not trying to defend the church's position. Indeed, I'm not trying to appeal to religious sensibilities at all.
I don't know what this means, either.
But, I have an appointment with the Doctor - as in the Tardis version!
posted by Elder Samuel Bennett | 8:21 AM
6 Comments:
Dr. Who, baby. He's referring to Dr. Who. He travels through time in the tardis. Duh.
This blog is gay.
It is quite a joyous venue, isn't it?
Well stallion, glad to enliven your blog.
“Andy” - you state that Stallion is trying to separate his opinions on marriage from his religion and that is laudable. Strangely enough, that is the LDS church's stance to have its members discuss on line and in person to support the distinction between doctrine and also not to necessarily identify their opinion with the LDS. It is how this is being "taught" in ward meeting houses. So don’t expect me to be influenced by an LDS blogger following the party line on how to address the marriage issue. This is a claptrap distinction which does not hide the fact the objections are obviously based on local religion, politics and a reactionary minority culture masquerading as social concern.
Longwinded Lady - you make yourself perfectly clear. Imagine a world where children grow up thinking that homosexuals are equal. How disgusting, how inconceivable, how catastrophic!
There seems a complete inability to see your actions within a historic reality or even repetitive patterns of blocking social progress. Read the intellectual social arguments made against interracial marriage in the 1950/60s and compare them to your arguments against same sex marriage. Shockingly similar! You know in 20/30 years you will look back on your opinions and your children will be embarrassed by you – collectively. You have an individual choice on how embarrassed they will be!
Gay people or “same sex attracted” people will marry and the sun will still rise and the sun will still set. Society will not collapse. You know in some places they already elect open homosexuals to politically lead their countries. Even in some religious affiliations, such as Lutherans elect the Bishop of Stockholm (a married lesbian) based on her ability to serve the Church not who she loves. How thoroughly modern!
You will have all these things to look forward to in the US – so go to the doctor and get some Xanax for the store cupboard!
A of A
Again, you seem to take issue with the messenger (or the alleged motivations behind the messenger's opinions) without bothering to address the message itself. This is typically done when one runs out of valid points to make, but still doesn't want to give up. In any event, it seems futile to keep making the same points over and over, so I won't.
As for your claims about what the LDS church is having its members do......I must be attending the wrong ward. Or perhaps my ward and stake didn't get the memo you reference. Because this is the first I've heard that I am supposed to express my opinion to others while pretending I'm not LDS or that my opinions are not consistent with my religious beliefs. (Heck, even Stallion's posts don't fit the mold you describe....he's been very very very clear about his church's stance on this issue and how his thoughts on the subject are very much intertwined with his religious beliefs.)
It is true that we are encouraged to let our voices be heard (online or elsewhere). But I fail to see how that encouragement is reason to dismiss what someone has to say. Find me an organization (religious or otherwise) that encourages its constituents to stay quiet, keep their mouths shut, and shy away from expressing their opinion on significant issues.....
I'm sure it would take you about 10 nanoseconds to find groups of LDS bloggers who oppose Prop 8. Yet something tells me you wouldn't so readily dismiss their opinions simply because they are (a) LDS and (b) using an online forum to share their thoughts.
Oh wait, I forgot....those LDS who oppose Prop 8 are free thinkers, while the rest of us LDS who support Prop 8 are just parroting the party line and are incapable of independent thought. I get it now. That makes sense. And I just saved you a post.
I wrote the following before reading Andy's on-target response above. I should just say "What he said!" and leave it at that, but since I already wrote all this crap, I might as well use it.
A of A:
You were instrumental in bringing this blog back to life, so for that, I am grateful.
However, I don't know how to respond to you at this point. You seem hell bent on exposing the evil machinations of the Mormons as opposed to responding to specific arguments. That's intellectually lazy, and it further isolates people on either side of the issue to demonize them with generalizations.
Either my arguments or valid in their own right, or they are not.
For the record, I have never received any counsel, public or private, from the LDS Church as to how to blog, speak about, or debate gay marriage. But I hate to bring that up, because that discussion is, at best, tangential, to the central issue. You raise the specter of Mormon oppression so you can keep beating up straw men.
The "equal" statement is a sideshow, too. Everyone - gay, straight, or anything in between - deserves equal treatment under the law, which is why everyone currently has the right to get married - including you. (And there's nothing the Mormons can do to stop it!)
What neither you or I have the right to do is to change the basic institution of marriage to suit our personal preferences.
Equating the "shockingly similar" rhetoric of opponents of interracial marriage and opponents of gay marriage comes close to an actual argument, but it's once again an attempt to attack the messenger instead of the message. "See? Bigots once wouldn't let the races marry, so you must be a bigot for opposing gay marriage!"
It's not enough. There are negligible, if any, intrinsic social differences between men or women of different races. However, there are considerable differences between men and women.
As for society not collapsing, you're right - to a point. Society didn't collapse instantly when we severely weakened marriage with no-fault divorce laws thirty or so years ago, but the cumulative damage since then has been overwhelming, and now even those outside the Vast Mormon Conspiracy recognize the need to repair the cultural landscape.
The sun still rises and sets, yes, but it does so on an increasing number of people who are being raised without a mother and a father.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home