Following, you'll find a protracted comment that I posted on an old friend's blog.
First, some background. We went to high school together in Idaho, which is currently 23% Mormon (second only to Utah, at 58%).* Our high school was dominated by the Mormons: they were the majority of the student body leadership, the jocks, the cheerleaders, the AP students; even the stoners were Mormons, albeit "bad" ones. There was a seminary across the street from the school (off school property) where the LDS kids got to go for one of their free periods (yet they got credit for it like study hall — this explains it a bit). One of my closest friends was not only not allowed to do homework on the Sabbath, she wasn't even allowed to patronize any stores/restaurants because that would be complicit with someone else working on the Sabbath. The friend with whom I'm in dialogue in the following conversation was, is, and (lamentably) probably always will be a devout follower of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And when I say devout, I mean he wouldn't drink Coke (they can't consume high amounts of caffeine, but chocolate's okay) and wouldn't write on his body (ya know how you doodle on yourself when you're bored in class?) and he would get furious if anyone even joked about writing on him — his body was a temple, literally. He went on a mission for 2 years to Samoa, got married in the temple, and is probably currently working on creating physical bodies for spirit children so that he can become a god. Really. I could go on about the Mormons in my life but that's for another post.
So my old friend, Nate, now maintains a blog here where he posts about his mission trip to Samoa, his studies in physical education, and his theological and philosophical thoughts on the world. I occasionally skim his posts to find out what he's up to, mostly ignoring the religious, self-referential dogma. Until it hit too close to home.
This is his post about gay marriage. You may read it if you like. Even if you don't, I think you'll enjoy my response:
oh, nate.
i don't know where to start or even if i should. i did so enjoy our theological debates back in high school. but the terms of the debate have shifted, namely my foundation, and i'm not sure if they can be reignited. but we'll see.
see, something i learned long ago about engaging someone in a disagreement is the concept of a criterion. as you probably know, a criterion is a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided. it is pretty important for folks to agree upon a criterion, or criteria, before they continue with a discussion...to find a common ground from which they can make claims and warrants, a value system to appeal to in order to persuade the other person of their ideas.
i've been reading your blog for a while and considered engaging you on some of your more opinionated posts. but i've refrained because it's felt hopeless. it seems like we would both be speaking such different languages (i think we have less in common now than we did in high school since i now happily identify as an unbeliever). i've worried that since we don't seem to share many, if any, criteria for judgement, it would be futile to disagree with you.
but for a few reasons i feel compelled to reply to this post. one is that as a fellow philosopher i have to take issue with your logic. i guess i did find a common criterion - logic. two is that though our friendship currently only exists in our memories, i still have a strong memory of you as a kind-hearted and caring person. and, three is that, although it's easy for me to find the same arguments you are making all over the place, it hurts more to hear them from you. and simultaneously i have a glimmer of hope that you will hear me with open ears. plus, this post hits closer to home than some of the others, since i'm a big ol' queer myself (if you didn't already know, surprise!)
since i don't take your scriptures as anything other than interesting theological texts, i will address the other claim you make: the slippery slope argument, that the legitimation of gay marriage will lead to wholehearted acceptance of child molestation/abuse, etc. but your logic falls through the cracks with this statement: "insert-anything-worse-here-as-long-as-it's-consensual" correct me if i'm wrong, but i take this to imply that you believe that the aforementioned atrocities are consensual (you referenced the guy who locked his daughter in a basement and raped and abused her and child pornography). it seems obvious to me, so perhaps i'm misreading your meaning, but child pornography is not consensual (hence, the age of consent). rape is not consensual. locking someone in a basement for 24 years? not consensual.
analogizing gay marriage to these horrific crimes is not only just bad logic, it's hurtful and destructive. comparing me and my friends to people who abuse others nonconsensually would be like me comparing you and your family and friends to the FLDS folks in Texas (guys old enough to be the fathers of their underage wives). but growing up in idaho, and being friends with you, i know the difference between LDS and folks that have branched off from y'all. well, actually i think your comparison is worse because we don't even have a nominal similarity to rapists, pedophiles, etc.
what's particularly dangerous about persuasive and illogical rhetoric like this is that most folks who agree with you and read this won't catch that slip(ery slope). you speak to their shared disgust and revulsion of consensual relationships between folks of the same gender and incite even more hatred by comparing them to horrific non-consensual acts.
as for your paragraph of rhetorical questions, i'd love to hear your answers to them. so much depends, again, on your criteria for judgment - should the state have standards of equality separate from the church? whose right and wrong? what exactly is a "moral fabric"? is it important to you that there are (moral) absolutes in this world? why?
you quote the scriptures: "We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God." i would love to hear a polemic from you against spousal or child abuse, or how it turns your stomach to imagine a husband cheating on his wife, how you don't hate philanderers but if they repent they will become pure. but i rarely, if ever, hear religious folks spending as much time and energy expounding upon the horrors of these other, very rampant, sins. (as a side note, i don't believe in compulsory monogamy either, but that's another conversation)
which is why i call into question your claim that you don't hate "homosexuals." i'm not saying that you do hate the gays because the verifiability of emotions is an oxymoron. you are the expert on your own feelings. but what i want to question is the role that that statement plays in your (and many others') argument against homo love. why do y'all feel so compelled to say it? why did i feel so compelled to say "love the sinner, hate the sin" back-in-the-day when i felt similarly? i'm not really sure, but it feels like an intense contradiction which attempts to cover over all of the hatred incited by your preceding words which construct a world where gay folks are disgusting, comparable to rapists and pedophiles, and secretly planning to take over the world in the name of all that is holy.
i've done my best to keep the terms of this response civil and respectful. though this can prove trying at times when it feels like my very existence is nauseating to you and yours. but even when it's trying and perhaps a bit too personal, i do love a good debate, and you, my dear, are a worthy opponent.
hope you are well,
jesse vernon
p.s. thought you'd find these interesting:
http://www.kcpw.org/article/5722
http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=4324
i don't know where to start or even if i should. i did so enjoy our theological debates back in high school. but the terms of the debate have shifted, namely my foundation, and i'm not sure if they can be reignited. but we'll see.
see, something i learned long ago about engaging someone in a disagreement is the concept of a criterion. as you probably know, a criterion is a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided. it is pretty important for folks to agree upon a criterion, or criteria, before they continue with a discussion...to find a common ground from which they can make claims and warrants, a value system to appeal to in order to persuade the other person of their ideas.
i've been reading your blog for a while and considered engaging you on some of your more opinionated posts. but i've refrained because it's felt hopeless. it seems like we would both be speaking such different languages (i think we have less in common now than we did in high school since i now happily identify as an unbeliever). i've worried that since we don't seem to share many, if any, criteria for judgement, it would be futile to disagree with you.
but for a few reasons i feel compelled to reply to this post. one is that as a fellow philosopher i have to take issue with your logic. i guess i did find a common criterion - logic. two is that though our friendship currently only exists in our memories, i still have a strong memory of you as a kind-hearted and caring person. and, three is that, although it's easy for me to find the same arguments you are making all over the place, it hurts more to hear them from you. and simultaneously i have a glimmer of hope that you will hear me with open ears. plus, this post hits closer to home than some of the others, since i'm a big ol' queer myself (if you didn't already know, surprise!)
since i don't take your scriptures as anything other than interesting theological texts, i will address the other claim you make: the slippery slope argument, that the legitimation of gay marriage will lead to wholehearted acceptance of child molestation/abuse, etc. but your logic falls through the cracks with this statement: "insert-anything-worse-here-as-long-as-it's-consensual" correct me if i'm wrong, but i take this to imply that you believe that the aforementioned atrocities are consensual (you referenced the guy who locked his daughter in a basement and raped and abused her and child pornography). it seems obvious to me, so perhaps i'm misreading your meaning, but child pornography is not consensual (hence, the age of consent). rape is not consensual. locking someone in a basement for 24 years? not consensual.
analogizing gay marriage to these horrific crimes is not only just bad logic, it's hurtful and destructive. comparing me and my friends to people who abuse others nonconsensually would be like me comparing you and your family and friends to the FLDS folks in Texas (guys old enough to be the fathers of their underage wives). but growing up in idaho, and being friends with you, i know the difference between LDS and folks that have branched off from y'all. well, actually i think your comparison is worse because we don't even have a nominal similarity to rapists, pedophiles, etc.
what's particularly dangerous about persuasive and illogical rhetoric like this is that most folks who agree with you and read this won't catch that slip(ery slope). you speak to their shared disgust and revulsion of consensual relationships between folks of the same gender and incite even more hatred by comparing them to horrific non-consensual acts.
as for your paragraph of rhetorical questions, i'd love to hear your answers to them. so much depends, again, on your criteria for judgment - should the state have standards of equality separate from the church? whose right and wrong? what exactly is a "moral fabric"? is it important to you that there are (moral) absolutes in this world? why?
you quote the scriptures: "We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God." i would love to hear a polemic from you against spousal or child abuse, or how it turns your stomach to imagine a husband cheating on his wife, how you don't hate philanderers but if they repent they will become pure. but i rarely, if ever, hear religious folks spending as much time and energy expounding upon the horrors of these other, very rampant, sins. (as a side note, i don't believe in compulsory monogamy either, but that's another conversation)
which is why i call into question your claim that you don't hate "homosexuals." i'm not saying that you do hate the gays because the verifiability of emotions is an oxymoron. you are the expert on your own feelings. but what i want to question is the role that that statement plays in your (and many others') argument against homo love. why do y'all feel so compelled to say it? why did i feel so compelled to say "love the sinner, hate the sin" back-in-the-day when i felt similarly? i'm not really sure, but it feels like an intense contradiction which attempts to cover over all of the hatred incited by your preceding words which construct a world where gay folks are disgusting, comparable to rapists and pedophiles, and secretly planning to take over the world in the name of all that is holy.
i've done my best to keep the terms of this response civil and respectful. though this can prove trying at times when it feels like my very existence is nauseating to you and yours. but even when it's trying and perhaps a bit too personal, i do love a good debate, and you, my dear, are a worthy opponent.
hope you are well,
jesse vernon
p.s. thought you'd find these interesting:
http://www.kcpw.org/article/5722
http://www.glaad.org/publications/archive_detail.php?id=4324
He responded in this post, to which i may respond at some point. Right now it feels futile because, as my pal josh says, it's very convenient to make religious arguments when you appeal to an omnipotent power: I'm right because god says so. (which is pretty much the gist of his response)
I'd love honest feedback — was I too harsh? was it too ad-hominem (can that be used as an adjective?)? are you baffled that I'm even engaging in this? Whaddya think?
*U.S. Religious Landscape Survey 2008, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, pp 99-100.
