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:

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?

As for placing current events within a framework based on past events and patterns is not an attack but pretty logical.

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.

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.

But, I have an appointment with the Doctor – as in the Tardis version!

I don’t know what this means, either.

More Marriage Responses
Arthur Kane

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *