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.
6 comments:
Jesse,
Just to clarify a few points, if I may.
We, the Mormon kids, never did, nor will we ever, get credit for taking seminary. A large percentage of us had to take summer school to acquire the necessary number of credits to graduate. Thus the separation of church and state was strictly maintained. In many parts of the country, Mormon kids have to get up extra early to fit in seminary before school because the population density of Mormons doesn't justify building seminary buildings next to the high schools.
Also, a person who argues by appealing to an omnipotent power and then asks you to take the argument for granted, at face-value, is doing no one any good. This has never been my position nor will it ever be. I'm asking readers of my blog to personally discover and connect with the omnipotent power, God. I've never claimed exclusive privilege to God, nor has any other with any degree of understanding. My position has always been an open invitation to all to become acquainted with their Maker.
Thanks for the link to my separation of church and state entry. I really appreciate it.
I read your entire entry and the most important thing to me is that banning gay marriage is another issue of separation of church and state. People are imposing their religious views on financial and legal issues.
This country was founded by people wishing to escape state-imposed religion. We should hold true to their desires.
The link, Really, leads to a website that is not accurate in many aspects. Misquotations and misrepresentations are too frequent to make it a reliable source.
If you would like to understand more about the Mormon concept of deity, I'd suggest consulting the Mormons themselves at www.mormon.org or www.lds.org or www.jesuschrist.lds.org.
Why is it lamentable that I will probably always be a devout follower of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Our high school population reflected the Idaho state average of 23% Mormon. To say that Mormons "dominated" the school in all of its extracurricular activities is to admit that the minority was largely accepted and liked by the majority, or that the minority had a disproportionate accumulation of talent. I would rather believe the former than the latter.
In your post, Jesse, you make a few personal jabs at me. Is it okay for me to not like Coke? Is it okay for me to not like writing on my skin? Are these jabs an effort to accurately portray Mormonism or to typecast all its followers by the personal quirks of only one of its adherants?
You know I'm open to dialogue. Shouldn't you be too and encourage your readers to read not only your post (which would be really one sided, appealing to your readership's interests, or to put it in your own words, "...Most folks who agree with you and read this won't" think twice about what you're saying) but both of my posts in question?
Admittedly, neither of us are truly objective in the ideas we've put forword, that's not the point. But to try and objectively consider all viewpoints is a good exercise before drawing conclusions. Thus a pursuit of truth should include gathering as much data as possible, not encouraging people to only read one side of the dialogue. You didn't say for anyone not to read my posts, but you didn't highly recommend reading them as a means to understanding my viewpoints either.
If you are a non-believer, then the best course of action is to ignore the idiosyncrasies of Mormon theology and not undermine our credibility as a people who, as a whole, try to live good lives and try to be kind to all around them.
My first post to which you refer did mistakenly identify gays with criminals. You pointed that out and I quickly wrote my second post to correct that flaw. my intent was to connect the mentioned behaviors as they apply to consenting parties. That is where the argument stands, though I hope this can remain a friendly argument, or debate if you prefer that.
For as much as Nate would like to paint himself as an original thinker, he is merely hiding behind the regurgitated drivel of the fervent. He gives himself away with this one statement:
"The grounds on which I base my arguments submit that God has a plan for His children that is designed for their happiness."
He is not articulating anything resembling an important or original thought on the subject of homosexual marriage or its implications. Rather, he is tossing out inaccurate analogies (which he recants after challenge) and then hiding behind the unchallengeable precepts of his faith.
Even though he concedes the need for common criteria -- "It is critical that a conversation revolves around a mutually agreeable criterion or criteria. I’ve learned that it’s important to “operationally define the terms,” as one of my professors always says, to ensure that we’re all on the same page, not talking about completely different issues using the same terminology" --he ignores this need in favor of maintaining his position.
Though Nate says the debate now is about the behaviors of consenting individuals and the state's role in regulating them, that is not at all accurate. What the debate is really about is whether the state should have a moral fabric, and from what our society will weave it.
Instead of arguing that by allowing gay marriage we as a society will open a "Pandora's box whose contents are more vile and vicious than we could ever fully anticipate right now", he should simply make the case that if as a society we don't accept Jesus and the Christian faith, we will be doomed. That in essence is what he is saying.
While I have as little tolerance for the religious imposing their views on me as they have for the reverse, I would at least respect it if they came straight out and said it: "You are going to hell if you don't believe what we believe." At least that way I could save my breath and time knowing that nothing can be gained from debate.
But to pretend that one is interested in conversation when in fact he or she is not is hypocritical. What Nate and his ilk are interested in is proving that their right is the only right.
Jesus said it best when he said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It is so, so hypocritical for Nate to argue that allowing gay marriage will be a step on the road to legitimizing pedophilia and incest when the forebearers of his own religion practiced those very same things (and indeed certain factions still do). More dangerous than gay marriage or coffee is the brand of blind hypocrisy that so many people today practice, myself included.
a liberal mormon weighs in...
i'm no intellectual, either--i did want to point out that many of the mormon people i know are not opposed to the legalization of gay marriage. the church's official stance is of course homophobic, but that's for nate's blog, not me. i believe in the separation of church and state, and not imposing my religious beliefs on others thru legislation. i wouldn't want anyone else's values imposed on me. that being said, i believe everyone has the right to be happy in their life. i don't equate a consensual homosexual marriage to anything other than a consensual heterosexual marriage. why deny rights to individuals because of who they love? it doesn't make sense to me, really.
well, that's my two cents. by the way, hey jesse. i read your blog... i wish you would post more often....
Jensie - Thanks! Your comments sound pretty intellectual to me..fancy debatey rhetoric is overrated. I mostly use it when I think it will help the person I'm in conversation with hear me better. I plan on posting much more often..it's pretty thrilling to have this many comments. Thanks for the encouragement!
Gregory - Thanks for the input..you make some great points and help clarify some of the key points of contention in this conversation. Out of curiosity, do I know you?
Nate - I'll be addressing your points fairly thoroughly, soon. I think they warrant a new post.
Post a Comment