Anna Quindlen’s article “The Same People” can be summarized by the following statement, “[i]f two women in white want to join hands in front of their families and friends and vow to love and honor one another until they die, the only reasonable response to that is happy tears, awed admiration and societal approval." Ms. Quindlen used the word reasonable. She acknowledges there are responses to gay marriage other than approval and admiration, but in her mind none are reasonable.
Contrast her statement with that issued by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. “We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God… we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
If one believes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to be Christ’s church. And if one believes that His apostles and His prophets are ordained to bring forth His teachings. Then one must accept the proclamation to the World to be Christ’s doctrine. One must also accept that God has ordained marriage only between man and woman and that marriage in any other form will bring about the calamites foretold. If my logic is accurate, and please let me know if you think it is flawed, can a member of the LDS church respond to gay marriage with happy tears, awed admiration and approval? Most importantly is a member of the LDS church unreasonable for not doing so?
Ms. Quindlen also writes "[s]cream, shout, jump up and down. No matter. The gay-marriage issue is over and done with. The upshot: love won." She continues "[s]omeday soon the racas surrounding all this will seem like a historical artifact, like the notion that women were once prohibited from voting and a black individual from marrying a white one." What do you think about that assessment?
1 comment:
Anna (like most of those who believe strongly in genderless marriage) seems constitutionally unable to admit strong arguments exist contrary to what they believe. Those arguments, as she so slyly puts it, are simply unreasonable. Of course, they're unreasonable because, why? -- well, because of Anna's own ipse dixit, of course. She doesn't deal with the arguments; instead, she belittles those who make them by comparing them with racists (Aside: as the white parent of a black american son, I feel safe stating unequivocally I'm not racist, yet I disagree strongly with genderless marriage). In essence, Anna engages in continuous ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with her.
If a Christian used these same tactics against an atheist in a debate about whether God exists, Anna would be the first to object. Somehow, however, when she uses such tactics against Christians, it's warranted.
I've never thought of Anna as a particularly cogent arguer, and this "name call those who disagree with me" style only reiterates that opinion. In the end, Anna is about the same as Ann Coulter, except Ann Coulter is thinner, blond, and better looking.
Post a Comment